Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Cooke

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 July 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cooke[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)

Not notable. Vanity page. The original author of the page appears to be the person. Many of the citations appear to be the authors own website, or works. See comment below Slobberdan (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and a possible WP:COI is no reason for deletion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a vanity page WP:COI masking as a biography of a 'video game developer, writer and musician', which does not meet WP:AUTHOR for creative works and research would not fall under WP:ACADEMIC because the work is not widely cited. Generally...there are sites better dedicated to listing credits on video games and simply working on one, or for a specific company is not notable in itself. The same could be said for being part of a demoscene, publishing fanzines or simply running a campaign for proposed hardware drop-ins that never made it to market. The journalism credits include running fanzines, winning a competition and writing web articles - these are not notable in themselves, nor are widely cited. The filmmaking credits are not notable - one of the two films links to the subjects own site and the other, a vimeo upload. Neither film has any notoriety and actually appear to be amateur level work that is not at all well known. The video game section lists places of employment - simply working for companies is not a notable thing, it's best left to LinkedIn to record and again, game credits MobyGames. The research noted - are ultimately links citing two separate 'blog' posts, this not widely cited and are not notable or otherwise scholarly. Had they been scholarly, they would quality under WP:ACADEMIC. The claim to be a musician may be valid but potentially from nothing than the standpoint of a pastime - the article does not speak to this topic nor underlines any notoriety in this field. The screenwriting credit links to the subjects own blog post mentioning the upload of a screenplay to a website (more or less entering a competition) and being the highest rated entry for the month of February 2008, but beyond that there is no mention of the screenplay anywhere on the internet, not even on the website it was uploaded to - it lacks any notoriety and labeling it as 'unproduced' does not mean it had that kind of credibility or potential, it's a little misleading actually (being a wannabee is not a notable thing). The most relevant item in this article is a journalism credit that appears to be for a gaming magazine for a short period of time, however this does not hold up against peer work - people with a notoriety from similar work in larger publications (such as Simon Goodwin) do not have Wikipedia articles, nor probably would. In light of the fact that the creator of and a major contributor of this article appears to be the subject (see talk pages), this appears to be a vanity page. The subject clearly has done many great things, both professionally and hobby-wise so I do not wish to discredit, but these are simply not at a level notability or notoriety to warrant a biographical article on Wikipedia, nor are they Encyclopedic in nature. I would suggest people voting for/against deletion consider whether this article would exist, had the subject not personally stubbed it out. Slobberdan (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion and AfD is the place to rid Wikipedia of being used for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (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.