Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Rose (writer)

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rose (writer)[edit]

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

No longer notable in videogames journalism field or scriptwriting Bumlord97 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if he is not currently relevant to journalism or scriptwriting, his credits are sufficient enough to make him notable in the encyclopedic sense. —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred. Article more than amply shows his notability. Nominator does not make a convincing argument. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (EC). Per C.Fred, notability is not temporary. Article seems to suggest an obvious notability. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article feels more like a fan's shrine to the writer, and even then doesn't do a very good job. After reading the article several times, I don't see how this writer is any more notable than Chris Dahlen, Alex Walker and Amanda Swift, who don't have their own wikipedia articles. Writing a book that no one has heard of and creating a load of failed pilots is hardly a sign of notablity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.42.126 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — 81.179.42.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Is he really worthy of a page on wikipedia? I can think of more culturally important people and events that don't have a wikipedia page, like Lord Worm of Cryptopsy, or the entire wigger slam movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.210.94 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — 78.145.210.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly seems notable from what I can tell, and as said above, notability is not temporary. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, well sourced. Additionally both delete votes came from one-edit or few-edit IPs. --Teancum (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't currently have the best sourcing, though sources seem scarce for even the most well-known of games journalists, such as the eventually deleted Stuart Campbell (journalist). That Rose was responsible for Digitiser as well as having been a long-term contributor to Edge and others, on top of his TV work, game work, and awards, should mean that he's notable enough IMO. Miremare 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no such thing as "no longer notable"; someone has either met WP:BIO or they haven't. Marasmusine (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – I smell socks → [1]. MuZemike 17:23, 19 November 2009 (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.