Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey C. Grabowski

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 delete. The references are minimal, and many of the "keep" !voters describe their !vote as weak or dependent on some kind of change. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey C. Grabowski[edit]

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

No Claims of notability other then worked on some games but nothing that he himself is personally notable. article just claims he worked on some games and is friends with some people. Someone removed a previous prod that another editor had added so Im bringing it to afd. also has zero references. Tracer9999 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No notability, the author himself, probably isn't personally notable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has two references as ELs. Industry sources show him working for the last 15+ years in the industry, contributing to many publications. I don't see that he's won any awards yet, but persistence in an industry with so much turnover seems a credible argument for notability to me. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Alot of people work 20 years + in an industry and are not notable...if time put in an industry makes you notable then my aunt who works at a local walmart store must be totally notable as thier is so much turnover..and she has been there forever. The question is wether the references establish any personal notability -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep In my opinion this is a tricky decision as clearly the article is lacking proper references. The number of publications he has contributed means that in the RPG community he will certainly have recognition. The D&D world tend to have print publications and Exalted does appear to comfortably meet the notability standards and there will be RS. While there is the issue of whether being important in the D&D world makes someone notable enough for an encyclopedia... I think that this is a reasonable page to keep that interlinks with many other wikipedia pages that don't seem to have issues.

The issue for me is much larger than considering this single page. There are many wiki biographies that are highly dubious that interlink with many equally dubious articles.

This is largely a failure of projects failing to detail the criteria to include a page, list of reliable sources, etc. Then the only thing to monitor should be objectivityTetron76 (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if (and only if) more references can be found, as the page is very sparse right now. Otherwise delete. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero claim to notability; the external links on the page merely prove existence. — Bility (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage of this individual [1]. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in field. Better notability guideline needed here. –SJ + 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Was searching for this author this evening and finally came upon this discussion. The article on the author is extremely poorly written. This author has at least 16 books listed on Amazon.com, as co-author. The link to Amazon is here: [[2]]. If co-authoring 16 or more books published by established houses does not qualify an author as notable on Wikipedia, what exactly does? I am also curious as to how this has been missed by everyone who performed searches on this author's work. Perhaps someone should add his bibliography to his page because it reads weakly at present and probably contributed to his being selected for deletion. Thanks for your time. Bookman5000 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Bookman5000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia quite clearly defines that being an author does not automatically make someone notable i.e. WP:AUTHOR. These criteria if met should be verifiable from WP:RS that are independent of the person. Now, while there are clearly many subjective terms each point really should be clearly met in the criteria being used and with Co-creators this should show include they had a major contribution to the notable creation. If WP:ANYBIO is considered there is the two pronged Well-known and significant award both of which really should be more closely defined, is a RS using these exact terms needed? It is the significant that can often become an issue when there are multiple categories and much stronger awards such as Hall of Fame for the awards available.

A large part of the problem is that there is an oral tradition in board games that does not apply to video games which means that a person can have significant blog and forum attention but lack the RS to show the expertise. The ideal impartial coverage would be articles about the person in more than one national newspaper about more than one event. The further away the sources are from this the greater the notability issues are likely to be.Tetron76 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

number of books sold on Amazon is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references seem to be adequate, although they are a bit thin and could stand some improvement. BOZ (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2011 (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.