Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cara Ellison

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Ellison[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non-notable video game critic. --Viennese Waltz 07:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's not only a critic, but a notable game developer who worked as a narrative consultant on Dishonored 2 and senior narrative designer on Bloodlines 2. She also released books and a series of comics, which were reviewed by independent sources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Merko (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those sources are reliable, though? --Viennese Waltz 19:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia: ComicWatch is cited: [1], [2]. Can't say anything about other review sources. PC Gamer and Rock Paper Shotgun are known, reliable sources. She is also covered on Daily Record (Scotland) about her book (and more) here. Merko (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPERSON, significant mentions in reliable sources at Paste Magazine (part of it is an interview but there's also a substantial amount of independent commentary), and Wired Magazine. Also got a smaller mention in the New York Times, and that's in addition to the other stuff mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good number of reliable sources, and has been involved in the creation of several notable works. In addition to what others have mentioned, a cursory search finds this figure briefly mentioned in a number of academic dissertations regarding interactive fiction. Unsure if that factors into the notability equation, but it's something. --Mbrickn (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For several reasons:
- According to the talk page, the overwhelming majority of the article was written by someone with a conflict of interest.
- Several claims are original research: for instance the statement saying she was a regular contributor to three publications has three citations, all of which are just a single article that she wrote (rather than being things about Cara Ellison, they are things that Cara wrote about).
- The only important thing I see on the page is "senior narrative designer" for Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 2, but she later left it so I'm not even sure if that's notable. Everything else seems like really unimportant, transient things that read like yesterday's recentism (was a speaker at a conference, was a QA tester, etc). -Thunderforge (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thunderforge. --Viennese Waltz 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You nominated the article for AfD, is it necessary to write "delete" in a separate bullet point again? Merko (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was, but it sounds like I was wrong. Should I delete the bullet point? --Viennese Waltz 08:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read through WP:AFD and this subsection states "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this", so I suggest you ~~strike through~~ your comment. Merko (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does not lose its notability because of a potential conflict of interest. Sourcing supports existence as an article here. IrishOsita (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.