Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Marsh (writer) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. After several weeks' debate, there doesn't appear to be any agreement that the sources presented justify a standalone article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Marsh (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ian Marsh (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game designer still fails WP:GNG. My search yielded no significant coverage; the previous AfD closed as no consensus on the grounds that, per the only Keep !vote, "he had been the assistant editor of White Dwarf for 27 years, the games magazine run by Games Workshop, for 27 editions (and chief editor for 4)". Notability is unfortunately WP:NOTINHERITED. Pilaz (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • On what policy grounds? Pilaz (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to White Dwarf (magazine) - His very brief tenure as editor of White Dwarf is his only true claim to notability, and there really are not enough sources on him that would justify an independent article - most of the sources being used are simply game/book credits and not actual coverage. His association with White Dwarf is covered in the main article on the magazine already, however, both mentioning him in the body of the article as a regular contributor as well as including him in the list of editors, so Redirecting there seems like a reasonable thing to do. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we're over-interpreting not-inherited here: it's difficult to separate the person from what they did, and their lasting influence. During the time that he was assistant editor of White Dwarf, the parent company (Games Workshop) presided over the introduction of Dungeons and Dragons to the UK, and more-or-less single-handedly created the modern table-top/role-play games movement, which is huge, and of enormous legitimate interest to our readers. We're greatly hampered in looking for sources because this happened pre-internet, and his name is extremely common. We could redirect if White Dwarf had been his only contribution to the birth of gaming, but he did other things before and after, too, and those do not belong in the article on White Dwarf. If we get rid of this article, readers will have to piece together his existence from White Dwarf, DragonLords and the Time Lord game article, which is a messy situation much better avoided. Elemimele (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The works provided by Elemimele above seem sufficient to establish a body of work to meet WP:NCREATIVE#3 — 2pou (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: notability requires verifiable evidence. Where's the evidence that Ian Marsh played the influential roles attributed above? Why is there no coverage of it? I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that because he was an assistant director for a magazine whose parent company allegedly "single-handedly" introduced a game in one of the 193 countries of the world, and that game happens to be Dungeons and Dragons, we ought to give him a pass and conveniently forgive the lack of coverage. Marsh edited the magazine for three editions, meaning three months: judging by the fact that White Dwarf is currently on its 469th issue, it means that Marsh was the editor of the magazine for 0.6% of its tenure. He played a minor role, and not a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work as WP:NCREATIVE#3 demands. The absence of coverage reflects this fundamental fact. Pilaz (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote, it's not obvious to me that White Dwarf constitutes a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" (WP:NCREATIVE#3) either. The fact that the article hasn't sorted out its lack of citations since 2013 is quite telling, in my opinion. Pilaz (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I would recommend that editors not display their ignorance by nominating things that they don't know enough about to tell whether the current state of an article reflects reality or should be improved. If you don't know White Dwarf and its cultural significance as a gaming magazine arguably second only to Dragon (magazine), you really should think twice about nominating associated persons lest it simply make you look uninformed. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nom has misunderstood NOTINHERITED, which proceeds in one direction (from author to work, in this case). As NAUTHOR and other SNGs indicate, notability can indeed be "inherited" from work to creator. TimeLords alone would qualify Marsh as Notable. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:INHERITED makes it very clear that notability requires verifiable evidence. You want to apply NAUTHOR#3 here? Then you should show that Timelords is notable, despite having been templated for original research and lack of sources in 2012 and 2014. White Dwarf is a "significant or well-known collective body of work", despite suffering from a lack of citations since 2013? Prove it! All your claims of inherited notability are groundless without evidence. Pilaz (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the closer should keep in mind the special cases section of WP:BIO. If only SNGs are deemed valid, the guideline recommends merging into the closest article, not keeping. Pilaz (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no requirement, in NBIO or WP:N, to delete or merge articles that do not meet the GNG/NBASIC: this is one of the urban legends of Wikipedia.
      • And setting Time Lords aside for the moment, there is no doubt in my mind (or that of anyone else familiar with the sources) that White Dwarf constitutes a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" - it is discussed extensively in volume one of Apelcline's Designers & Dragons (2014), for example, and is also discussed in Carbonell's Dread Trident: Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Modern Fantastic (2019), among other independent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The special cases section of WP:BIO explicitly mandates merging as a course of action when WP:BASIC is not met and another SNG is met, on the contrary. As for your sources, Carbonell's book only gives a passing mention page 174 to White Dwarf. Does Appelcline also treat the subject as "extensively"? If you could provide page numbers, that would probably be useful for others to review the substance of your claims. In RS, I found only passing mentions for White Dwarf, while the parent company Games Workshop has been reported on by RS and is in my view notable. Pilaz (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to the index, the page references to White Dwarf in Appelcline, vol 1. are 137-47 (a ten page section), 33, 38, 120, 149, 152, 195 248, 351 and 356. To me, that qualifies as extensive. Additionally, I disagree with your interpretation of Carbonell as a "passing mention" in terms of policy.
          • Also, according to your interpretation of policy, all the articles that pass NPROF but fail NBASIC must be merged into other articles; however, this is essentially never done, suggesting a flaw in your interpretation of WP:NBIO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for taking the time. The appendix is online for all to view, from the author's website. White Dwarf gets five paragraphs on pages 143-144 in a section titled The Birth of White Dwarf: 1977–1978. The remnant part of the article is used to describe the evolution that the parent company went through in 1977 and 1978. The rest are mostly namechecks, since the magazine in itself is not as interesting to the writer as the pieces written in it. This book no doubt contributes to White Dwarf meeting the GNG, however, thanks to those 5 paragraphs narrating its origin. However, we're still a bit short on sources to meet the multiple part of the GNG, since Carbonell's reference is unfortunately not significant coverage ("A further important expansion of the narrative happens in White Dwarf #161 [...]" is not a sentence about White Dwarf, but about what I assume is a game). Are there any other sources that discuss White Dwarf in detail? As for WP:NACADEMIC, it stresses in the lead that it is an independent guideline from WP:BIO and that meeting any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC is sufficient for notability. Very far from BIO where the guideline takes a case-by-case approach to SNGs counting towards notability. If, say, an academic failed NACADEMIC but was part of a notable band (without meeting the GNG), then his content would likely be merged to the band article. Look at it from another perspective: if Ian Marsh was a notable individual in virtue of his editing of White Dwarf, then why is he virtually not covered anywhere? He receives a rather modest acknowledgement in Appelcline's book, where on page 146 we learn that he succeeded Livingstone as head of the magazine, and that he quit because the company moved to Nottingham. That's everything that Marsh gets in that book, which namechecks White Dwarf so many times and has 5 paragraphs dedicated to it. If you have access to Appelcline's 80's, 90's and successive volumes, could you look up Ian Marsh to see if he appears in the index? Pilaz (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't understand your reading of NACADEMIC, which is part of NBIO and is therefore covered by the same subsections as is NAUTHOR, which you are reading as obliging an arricle merge.
              • As far as the prerelease of Vol. 1 of Appelcline is concerned, it does not contain the relevant 10 pages, and the neither does the version on the personal website. The published version contains 8 paragraphs about the origin of the magazine (not 5), with additional discussion of the evolving content and role of the magazine in the rest of the 10 pages. There is even a two-paragraph discussion of Marsh's deciaion not to accompany the magazine when the company moved to Nottingham. I haven't looked for mentions in the other volumes, but that already contributes to personal notability as it is not a TRIVIALMENTION. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • For WP:PROF, please read the last paragraph of the lead, where it states independence from BIO; I actually intended to talk about WP:PROF all along, and instead used NACADEMIC incorrectly. Apologies for the confusion. As for the rest of your comment, I have made good faith efforts to look for sources, but you seem to assume that I have not read the actual chapter, which I have in its digital form, and I am not providing the link due to obvious copyright concerns. The latter three paragraphs are only tangentially about the magazine, and the rest are passing mentions. Marsh's claim to fame is to have held, for four months, the editorship of a magazine whose notability is half-proven, and to have thrown a fit because he didn't want to move to Nottingham. That's the extent of the sources we have for Ian Marsh: an SNG about being the editor of a partially sourced magazine. As a friendly reminder, WP:SNG is clear that articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, and for Marsh the unfortunate reality is that no significant coverage can be found. SNGs are an indicator of notability, but as the closers of AfDs about athletes have written this year,SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met (AFD), and As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG (AFD). This is my last reply to you, as I don't understand if you're uninterested in looking deeper for GNG coverage of Marsh or avoiding looking for it since that could lead to you changing your mind. Neither is a bad thing. Pilaz (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The indisputable fact that some people have closed AfDs without understanding the relationship between SNGs and GNG set out in WP:SNG is less significant, per WP:CONLEVEL, than the actual text of the guideline. GNG/NBASIC coverage is simply not required, per policy, to retain an article about a person who meets one of the specific NBIO criteria (besides NATHLETE). Where people have produced or are associated with multiple works, as in this case, there is no natural Merge target anyway and it is simply more encyclopedic to retain an article appropriately wikilinked to others - this is an example of what NBIO refers to as a satisfying explanation - in other words, an explicit rationale for a separate article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above arguments, as well as per WP:BAND (well, it's another creative SNG) #6, which is essentially what Elemimele is arguing: even if the GNG is debatable, there's enough RS coverage that belongs in multiple separate notable articles such that merging to any one of them is inappropriate. This is why the GNG is a guideline, not a policy: such exceptions exist. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any significant independent third party media coverage about him, and a simple Google search turns up nothing either. I subsequently did a targeted search including the Time Lord phrase, and found no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit surprised at that. When I do a google search I find quite a lot. Most of it is pretty rubbish as sourcing, but to give a rough flavour, here's a book review of the game by some dr Who magazine of the time: [1], despite being published in 1991, the game is still available on Amazon today, 30 years later; other reviews [2]; a lot of the stuff I find is blog-stuff so not reliable [3] but the fact so much exists suggests that Ian Marsh's game did make some impact. The game and Marsh are also discussed in this book: [4]. I haven't gone googling extensively, these are just typical from the first 2 pages of hits. I'm not saying the sources are great. They're not, they're mostly terrible. But we're talking games in 1991 here, so I wouldn't expect a write-up in the Times literary supplement. Elemimele (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fourth source is a great find and contributes to SIGCOV of Time Lord. My parallel search uncovered not much else other than that. I also doubt that the review in the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club magazine contributes to the GNG of Time Lord. Pilaz (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there seems to be genuine disagreement over whether this person's body of work is significant, this discussion has not directly examined whether we are better served by a standalone page or not; even significant figures often have no available biographical material, and readers are better served by a redirect. Discussion of this question would be helpful. Furthermore, it isn't enough for a game (or games) that Marsh contributed to to be notable; he must also have contributed substantively; and whether this is the case has not been discussed enough either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to drop out at this point, not in a huff, but because I feel there's a risk of me getting into Bludgeon territory by continuing to say the same things. I did attempt to discuss the questions raised by Vanamonde93, but perhaps not clearly. My issue with a redirect rather than a stand-alone page, is where is it going to redirect to? If Marsh were only known for White Dwarf it could redirect there, but we also have DragonLords before, the Time Lord game after that, and Oozlum games too, none of which belong in the White Dwarf article. If we redirect to White Dwarf we're obliged to remove all this additional information, which means we lose the overview of Marsh's place in the development of gaming, something that I think is of legitimate interest to our readers, and supportable by references (albeit not the best). In case of a redirect, those who'd like to know more about Marsh can only hope that some of his other activities may prove to be notable, and get their own articles; Time Lord appears to be teetering on the brink of notability. In this best-case scenario, our readers will have to piece together Marsh's contributions from several different articles, which isn't ideal. At worst, we end up in a situation where we decide that Marsh's work as a whole is not notable because it consists of a lot of individual bits, each of which is not-quite-notable - a sort of divide-and-conquer deletion-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts approach to AfD. I'm honestly not trying to bludgeon a point of view here; if Marsh gets deleted, so be it. But I think his activities are relevant to gaming when taken as a whole, not as individual bits, which is why I personally favour the stand-alone article. Elemimele (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also aware of bludgeoning, so I will keep this short because I don't think I have touched upon the relisting comments. I think Marsh substantively contributed to Time Lord and DragonLords as the co-creator of the game and co-founder of the magazine; I don't think he made a substantive contribution to White Dwarf given his short time there. Since all those creations suffer from notability issues, I don't know where a redirect would fit best, but given that the most information we have on him comes from his short time at White Dwarf, a redirect there would likely be okay. Alternatively, Time Lord could be a good candidate. At any rate, I don't think we are well-served with a standalone Wikipedia article whose only independent sourced content is that he left White Dwarf because he was bothered by the move of the parent company to Nottingham. Pilaz (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. White Dwarf and Time Lord are both clearly significant, notable works, and independent, Reliable Sources (namely Appelcline and Muir) document Marsh's contribution to both, thus meeting WP:NAUTHOR and NBASIC/GNG. Meanwhile, the other RS cited in this discussion also offer material that can be used in the article, which - rather than some lofty notion of importance - is the bar established by WP:SIGCOV.
    • AfD evaluates the topic, not the current article, and the topic here is clearly Notable. Also, because there are multiple CREATIVE contributions, each of which has its own article, no merger/redirect scenario is as encyclopaedic a treatment (or as helpful for the reader) as a separate article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing new in your reply (to me, unsurprisingly) that you haven't shared before, and since I believe I have already addressed the points about notability that you brought up, my recommended reading to you is WP:BADGER. Pilaz (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (my Keep !vote is noted above.) Regarding the relist comment, I believe that maintaining the article is a better option than a redirect. A redirect will face WP:X or Y problems given the options provided that qualified the subject via NCREATIVE. -- 2pou (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My reading of the article fails to find anything that would make the subject meet NBIO / CREATIVE / etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect if an appropriate target can be decided. Simply not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NBIO, no actual evidence of being notable has been provided (lots of blanket assertions though). Fram (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added several more sources and more material to indicate his notability. His British zine DragonLords received a favourable review by Gary Gygax, and was notable enough in the British games industry that Ian Livingstone, in the pages of White Dwarf, noted that Marsh was ceasing publication of his zine. Marsh's final act as editor of White Dwarf -- a hidden acrostic telling the new Managing Director of the company to sod off -- is notable enough to be mentioned by several sources. (I have chosen one.) Guinness323 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Following the addition of several new sources by Guinness323, I have compiled the assessment table below to see if the present sources help Marsh meet WP:NBIO. The table does not explore the notability of the creations of Marsh. Pilaz (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Fawcett, Neil (2006). "The Wargames Journal Interview". Wargames Journal. No. 4. Rebel Publishing. pp. 70–75. No Interview. Good for WP:ABOUTSELF, but usually not considered independent. See the essay WP:INTERVIEW and this discussion. Yes Yes ✘ No
"DragonLords Scrap Book". The Grognard Files. 25 July 2017. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ? No Self-published. WP:SPIP No Passing mentions ✘ No
Gygax, Gary (August 1982). "Two UK magazines are jolly good gaming journals". Dragon. TSR, Inc. (63): 58. ? Is the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons an independent source on Dungeons and Dragons fan magazines? Yes As a subject-matter expert. No Passing mentions of Ian Marsh, but significant coverage of his fanzine DragonLords ✘ No
Hall, Charlie (8 October 2021). "One of tabletop gaming's most prestigious awards has gone missing". Polygon. Vox Media. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ~ Information on Marsh comes from game designer and publisher James Wallis, who received the "Diana Jones Award" from Marsh Yes No Very little to call it significant coverage; we biographical information we get from Marsh is that he received the award and gave it away after getting married ✘ No
Livinstone, Ian (April 1985). "News". White Dwarf. No. 52. Games Workshop. p. 39. "Since joining the White Dwarf team, Ian Marsh no longer has time to publish his zine Dragonlords. So it's Dragonlords RIP after issue 22." No Marsh was already working for White Dwarf and for Livingstone when Livingstone wrote this Yes No ✘ No
Shannon Appelcline (2011). Designers & Dragons (p.146 of linked edition, recommend CTRL+F) Mongoose Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-907702-58-7. Yes Yes ~ Only information about Marsh is his short tenure as editor and resignation due to the imminent relocation of the magazine to Nottingham, plus the "sod off" acrostic. However, the text doesn't address Marsh "directly and in detail", since the primary focus of the paragraph is the White Dwarf magazine, so to say it partially counts towards the GNG is generous. ~ Partial
Marsh, Ian (August–September 1986). "The Town Crier". Adventurer (3). No Marsh is the author here ? ? ✘ No
"Time Lord (role playing book)". The Time Scales. Retrieved 25 January 2022. Yes No Fan website No Passing mention ✘ No
Muir, John Kenneth (2015). A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. McFarland. p. 428. ISBN 9781476604541. Yes Yes No Passage primarily about Time Lords, but Ian Marsh receives no coverage beyond being named as author ✘ No
"Editorial page". Strategy Plus. February 1991. p. 4. No Marsh was employed there at the time Yes ? Probably not, same as source below, only a listing in the credits ✘ No
"Editorial page". Computer Games Strategy Plus. No. 13. December 1991. p. 6. No Yes No Only listed in editorial staff ✘ No
"Black Hat Miniatures". Miniatures Workshop Lost Minis Wiki. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ? No User-generated wiki No No mention ✘ No
"Fighting 15s". Miniatures Workshop Lost Minis Wiki. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ? No User-generated wiki No Passing mention ✘ No
Paul, Mason (2017), "A Case Study of the Influence of Fandom: How Role-players Helped Develop Computer Games in Britain", 人間文化: 愛知学院大学人間文化研究所紀要 (Human Culture: Bulletin of the Institute for Human Culture), Nagoya, Japan: Aichi Gakuin University: 7. ? Assistant editor at White Dwarf while Ian Marsh was editor. See interview of Mason: Alexander Ballingall, "Building Strong Foundations (Paul Mason interview)", Fighting Fantazine Issue 10 (pp. 13-14; p.15). Yes No Two mentions of Marsh; does not address Marsh "directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Added assessment of Daranios' source. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there a question on the table about Dungeons & Dragons fan magazines? No such magazines are under discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I have doubts about the independence of the review of a fan magazine of a role-playing game made by creator of said roleplaying game. Since the magazine in question was the creation of the subject of this AfD, by proxy, I question the independence of the source. At any rate, it's worth mentioning the fact that Ian Marsh is not the subject of the piece and that it therefore can't count towards meeting the GNG. I changed it from independent to "questionable" because I also changed my mind at the AfD for DragonLords, for the sake of consistency. Pilaz (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is symptomatic of the problems with the table, though, (which is a very fancy way of presenting one editor's opinion about the sourcing, and nothing more). In this instance, Gygax is independent of Marsh whether or not he is independent of DragonLords. If there is content in Gygax that is usable for this (Marsh) article, that meets the relevant sourcing requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because a source meets the relevant sourcing requirement for an article doesn't mean it automatically counts towards notability. For example you can have primary sources in an article, but they won't help to meet WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, primary sources don't count towards notability. On the other hand, being short on the topic does not automatically disqualify a secondary source from counting towards WP:GNG, as long as it is not trivial, as spelled out by WP:NBIO. Notability can be built up by several shorter sources. Daranios (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:GNG explicitely tells us that the article topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine). Daranios (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added one more source found by Google Scholar. I think the remaining reliable independent sources together (and I personally think Polygon is fine here) provide enough material for more than "half a paragraph". Therefore they fullfill WP:WHYN, as well as WP:NBIO, even if they are individually short: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I don't think they are trivial. Together with the non-independent sources we clearly have a non-stubby article and it would be a service to noone to delete it. Daranios (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep with Wargames Journal and Designers & Dragons we have two (barely) acceptable sources IMO. With all the other ones--and there are plenty, we have enough to write a decent article. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, why was this relisted even once, let alone twice? Yes, it's benefited by good work and new sources during the relistings, but was still put in jeopardy by the continuing fact of this discussion's existence, which fell very quickly within the WP:SHADOWOFKEEP (a semi-fine essay in progress, no thank you I'd say, wait until it's done and makes more sense). Please. let's delete one sentence pages about someone's doll from the 19th-century before nominating - and more importantly defending a nomination well past its prime - pages like this which play well with others (literally). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios' argument. Even if no sources stand out, there certainly is enough here to write a good article. I don't think deleting this would improve Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvement of article and analysis of sources particularly by Guinness323, Daranios, Hobit, and others. BOZ (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. I agree with the other editors on their reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see there is a big pile on, with the Article Rescue Squadron leading the charge, in their desire to save this poorly sourced article. I've seen a lot of statements for this WP:BLP stating it is notable, yet I've not seen one quality WP:SECONDARY source that I can say for sure, that he is notable. Lets looks at the references:
  • Ref 1. The majority of the article is based on this reference and reference 3, yet reference 1 is an interview, that fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is not independent.
  • Ref 2. The GROGNARD Files That is a blog. It is not a reference.
  • Ref 3. "A Case Study of the Influence of Fandom: How Role-players Helped Develop Computer Games in Britain This is a low cited paper. It is states in two sentences Ian Marsh as editor of White Dwarf, and former White Dwarf editor Ian Marsh took over. That is the extent of it. It was a temporary position, so the paper focuses on Livingstone. It non-notable as a source. It is another passing mention.
  • Ref 4. It states Yet Another Fantasy & Sci-Fi Roleplaying Magazine, is published under the auspices of three irreverent gamers — Marc Gascoigne, Mike Lewis, and Ian Marsh It is a single column with a slight overflow to the next and states it is selling for 50p. It is nother passing mention and is non-notable.
  • Ref 5. Diana Jones Award It stated But the leader of the team was a chap called Ian Marsh, who would go on to become the editor of White Dwarf. and When Marsh got married some years later, it was time to give up childish things That is the extent of it, and that a passing mention.
  • Ref 6. Similar content. A passing mention.
  • Ref 7. Designers & Dragons Shannon Appelcline (2011). Designers & Dragons. Mongoose Publishing. p. 48. It states Ian Marsh succeeded Ian Livingstone as White Dwarf’s editor, but he only lasted for four issues. In issue #77 (May 1986), it was confirmed that White Dwarf too was moving to Nottingham. This alienated and angered even more staff members. Ian Marsh and Albie Fiore were just a few of the GW staff members who opted not to move with the magazine. That is non in-depth, passing mention.
  • Ref 8 Marsh, Ian (August–September 1986). "The Town Crier". Adventurer. He is the author. I couldn't locate any review of it.

That is all i'm doing. Of the first the 8 references, not one of them is a secondary source. 1 is interview, 1 is a WP:SPS source, 1 is a blog, 5 are passing mentions and 1 is not-notable as a reference, as it is book

The only reason I think it's taken off, is that they're is a lot of sentiment for people who read that magazine. Dungeon's and dragons were and are massive in the UK, but that doesn't make this person notable. If that article was new, it would sent back to draft, because they're is not one clear secondary source. scope_creepTalk 00:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your dismissal of the multi-sentence comment in Appelcline as a passing mention is in no way supported by the text or role of WP:SIGCOV. I would suggest that all editors weigh your intervention with appropriate caution as a result. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post up the details to see what it says. Yip, it is multi-sentence, but it is not 2 pages of a critical analysis. It doesn't constitute an in-depth reference. scope_creepTalk 02:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't anything in SIGCOV about 2 pages of critical analysis, though. And the canonical example of what isn't SIGCOV is a factoid that isn't even the topic of the sentence in which it is mentioned. The Appelcline reference used here is significantly more useful to this article than that. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is about 5-6 sentences. That is not in-depth, and trying to spin it up to something it's not, is disingenuous. scope_creepTalk 02:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, 5 or 6 usable sentences about a subject are going to meet SIGCOV. I would suggest that any other interpretation of the guideline is disingenuous, except that that could be construed as a personal attack. Newimpartial (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the most part with scope_creep on sources 1, 2 and 8 of their list. But about the other 5: They are secondary sources - if they are short or long does not change their nature. The quoted sections also fall short of the actually relevant content. E.g.:
Ref 3. also says that Marsh edited the fanzine DragonLords, that that was his stepping stone to Games Workshop, and that he later was editor of Games International/Strategy Plus.
Ref. 5 also says that Marsh was the first recipient of the trophy (and under which circumstances) and that he passed it on to Willis.
Now I don't say that each source has a lot of material on Ian Marsh. But why do we have requirements for length? So that we do not have too little material to write an article proper. Those sources together make up more "than half a paragraph" or "a few sentences", so the spirit of WP:GNG is fullfilled. And combining short sources is a valid way to go. Daranios (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only saving grace of the keep analysis that states is the the nature of the sources from this fringe culture; its gaming, the sources are not going to be perfect, in the least. However, at the same time, Marsh' collegeue, Livingstone has more coverage. I would suggest a merge. scope_creepTalk 03:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to White Dwarf (magazine); having looked into the source assessment table above, it seems to be accurate and demonstrate that WP:GNG has not been met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the best efforts of the canvass keep-voters squadron, WP:BIO isn't met and isn't going to be. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 2 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Marsh_(writer)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069533841"