Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Chambers

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. I almost closed this as No Consensus, based on most of the keep arguments being unconvincing vis-a-vis citing policy, and some of them being from accounts with relatively little experience. On the other hand, it's a little odd (as mentioned in the debate) that a nomination would come from a user with a fairly low experience level. In any case, the article (and sourcing) has evolved significantly during the course of this AfD, so many of the comments on the delete side about lack of sourcing seem obsolete at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Chambers

Jamie Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Minor figure of little notability in the game industry with a few titles to his name and sources lack quality. LambdaKnight (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft space so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bibliography section with a number of books and links to their info. Going through to find other references to add, then I'll be fleshing out other sections of the page. ―Vancian | ✉  21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe that the sources you added affirm my "Keep" by attesting to the notability of the subject. BOZ (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - User has worked on a number of significant releases in the role playing game industry, including the release of the most recent edition of Metamorphosis Alpha, the Dragonlance setting for WotC, and the creation of the Serenity Role Playing Game. There really is no question of subject's notability - the only real issue being that the article is a stub needing expansion. Further, contributor
  WP:BLPCOI. Contributor specifically mentions that attempting to delete the two other pages helps show that he is not a SPA. Regardless of our personal feelings about any person who is the subject of a Wikipedia entry, these actions are troubling and show that the notability of the article subject is not the true focus here. Wikipedia articles should not be deleted out of spite. This is LambdaKnight's third attempt to delete this article in less than 24 hours. Ceronomus (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The second "attempt" to delete was a mistake. I used a Twinkle gadget which I thought did the procedure for nominating a page for deletion, but instead tagged an article for uncontroversial deletion, which I had already done. Excepting that mistake, as far as I understand, I am simply following the standard procedure. The procedure is to first propose an article for uncontroversial deletion with the associated tag. Anyone can remove that tag if they believe the deletion is not uncontroversial. That was done. The second step is to start a discussion about the deletion. If this discussion leads to the conclusion that it should be kept, then it is kept. If the discussion comes to the conclusion that it should be deleted, it is deleted. Regarding your accusation that I'm "attacking" this page because someone "defended" another person is ridiculous, but I can see how you might see it that way. In truth, the subject of this article implied that if Sean Patrick Fannon's article merits deletion, then so does his. I looked at his article and agreed. It isn't particularly well-sourced or useful. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I don't see a single secondary source which discusses them as an author in any of my
  WP:BEFORE searches. SportingFlyer T·C 23:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per BOZ.
  talk) 01:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per
  WP:AUTHOR, he has been recognized by being given three awards I've found so far, as well as a nomination for another. He has also written at least ten gaming books and additional short stories. He also created the Cortex system, but as far as I can tell he's the only one who has used it so I wouldn't count that as being a significant new concept, theory, or technique. I've added information on and links to the sources I found to the article itself but I think it's pretty clear that he is notable enough for the article to be left in place. ―Vancian | ✉  03:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Does anything they have written pass
  WP:BIO fail. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have also found a number of other secondary coverage mentions of him that I have not had time to add to the article yet, but I plan to over the next few days. In some cases I'm not even sure how to cite them properly, like this. [1]―Vancian | ✉  15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to reviewing the other secondary coverage. The Cherokee Tribune article, from the blurb I can see, appears to be a "local man" profile, and I can't tell how long it is. (The cite is easy, you have the author's name, publisher, and date, so you can fill in those fields.) Even, arguendo, being the third author out of four on a game is enough to pass

WP:AUTHOR, which multiple independent periodical articles and reviews/primary subject of an independent and notable work have picked up the game they co-wrote? The fact the award couldn't be verified by anything apart from Wikipedia is a huge red flag to me, honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It's less that the 2005 Origin Award can't be verified by anything else and more that it's from 14 years ago, so most places online that mention it are gone or were blogs and I've seen people get downright furious at inclusion of links to blogs. I removed the Wikipedia link and left the link to the announcement but I'll see if I can find more expansive coverage. ―Vancian | ✉  17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep many new refs have been added to bring the page with the guideline of
  WP:AUTHOR. Web Warlock (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We're now up to two sources, his hometown's blurb on how he moved to Wisconsin to create games and this review of one of his works (I can't tell if this journal is a reliable source or not): [1].
  WP:AUTHOR isn't met yet, and I've gone through every single source and I apologize, but there's almost no significant coverage of him. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2019 (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.