Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Richards

Add links
Source: 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 Delete, based on strength of arguments.

Fram (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Randy Richards

Randy Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Article since expanded to link to several mentions in lists, but no non-trivial secondary coverage, so the article still fails

CSD G4 candidate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Will that do? Malakai Joe (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. Notability has to be backed up by reliable secondary source material. So you would need to find some commentary on his appearance in TV commercials, rather than just the commercial. Further, it needs to be non-trivial, so an entry in a list isn't sufficient; basically you need to find whole articles dedicated to Randy Richards. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a rather narrow view of notoriety, and may be unattainable by most local celebrities - people who have notoriety but do not appear in Internet-accessible media or articles. For example, how do I point to an article in a local newspaper or magazine? I know of several articles on Randy Richards that appeared locally in newspapers in two separate cities. Do I have to scan them as an image and then link to them? That seems silly. Malakai Joe (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are
wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of people. The preferred method of pointing to newspapers and magazines, as I understand it, is to use {{cite journal}} or another similar citation template. Offline sources are allowed, but it's preferable to have something that wikipedia's editors can see if you want them to believe that a person has notability; since it's generally easier to get online coverage than offline, and since most newspapers have online versions, the absence of online coverage makes the offline coverage seem suspicious. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand. I'm trying. I was able to find an article on Randy Richards in Gloomwing Magazine issue #20, titled "Interview With D&D Author Randy Richards". Its a rather long interview that includes a review of his Dreadmire book. However there is no online source for the article itself, other than a copy posted on a message board: http://spellbindergames.yuku.com/topic/398 What to do? Scan the article and e-mail it to you?Malakai Joe (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That won't be necessary :-). Use that URL in the url parameter of the {{cite journal}} template. I haven't heard of Gloomwing Magazine - could you tell me a little more about it? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find the newspaper articles online at their websites, which are Times-Picayune out of New Orleans, and The Advocate out of Baton Rouge. Problem is not all articles in these newspapers are copied online. Apparently its only the bigger articles. Looking at last week's newspaper and comparing it to the online version, I would say most of the printed articles do not even appear in the online version. Is this unusual? The St. Bernard Voice does not even have its articles online at all - http://www.thestbernardvoice.com/ Malakai Joe (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person to ask about what's usual for US papers - most of the UK ones I read publish everything online, but usually after a delay. What do you mean by "biggest" articles? If the articles aren't more than a few paragraphs, they might not count towards the notability guidelines. Also, what was the title of the articles? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Biggest articles" are the ones that take up a half a page or more, and even those were shortened for online. And you didn't mention anything about size of the article, you said "whole articles dedicated to Randy Richards". The magazine article takes up several pages so that should be sufficient. What is the minimum qualifying size for a newspaper article? Does an appearance/interview on local news for a half hour show count? I can post the video. Malakai Joe (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a hard and fast rule about article size, other than to say that one sentence is definitely too little and a 360-page book is definitely sufficient, but in general I'd say it would have to be several paragraphs at least, and the article would have to be about him rather than about his company or products. The appearance on local news would depend on several things, chiefly the topic: If he was appearing in order to promote a product, it doesn't count. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to upload - I found the 18-minute news video online: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=5415068
Randy isn't the subject of that coverage - it's an interview about Hurricane Katrina, not an interview about him. If they'd spent the time asking him questions about himself, that would be the sort of thing you're looking for. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They spent time asking him questions about himself. Did you not watch the whole thing? Besides, Randy was the photojournalist whose photos were being shown. The entire segment was about him and his photographs, not Hurricane Katrina per se.
I did, and it was almost entirely about Hurricane Katrina, albeit illustrated by his photographs. There was no substantial discussion of Randy himself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying because the show was about Richards' photographs, its the photographs that should be list on Wikipedia? Thats ludicrous. The artist is the one that gets the credit, not the art!
The man is on TV as an actor and in the news, in magazine articles, in newspapers, and has award winning photographs on a national tour, is a published author of magazine articles and books, he makes paid public appearances at convention across the U.S., plus he recently bought a publishing company. If that doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia entry, no one does. Malakai Joe (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common claim, but
WP:N. However, you say his photograhpy has won awards - which awards? Winners of notable awards are often notable themselves. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Common claim or not, its still true. He's done a lot of stuff! Not everything is showable on the Internet. I am looking for the award website. I'm sure it will not be prestigious enough for you, if the pattern holds. Here is the link: http://www.lumcon.edu/lagniappe/photocontest/winners2006/default.asp (scroll down to Swamp Moon).
Third place isn't the same as winning, I'm afraid. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL!!!
I am awaiting an e-mail reply to find out what the exact titles of the newspaper articles are. I don't want to give you the wrong title by mistake. All I can tell you is they are definitely more than three paragraphs each. I am sure you will find some other problem with the articles once they are revealed. Do you have a history with this guy? Some enmity between you two perhaps? Me thinks thee protesteth too much, as it were. Malakai Joe (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered when this would start. I have no link to Randy Richards, whatsoever. I just think that he didn't belong on wikipedia before, and he doesn't now. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well what did you expect?? I mean really: Third place awards are not good enough, Newspaper articles must be online, Magazine articles can't be proven because they are not online, 18 minutes on the news is not good enough, TV commercials are not enough, publishing books is not enough, paid appearances across the U.S. is not enough, a national photo tour of his photos is not enough. Its stretches credibility! I knew there was something ulterior going on here. How long ago was the other article removed?Malakai Joe (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've specifically said things don't have to be online. Beyond that, it's all down to the
WP:BIO guidelines. Randy's done a lot with his life, and well done to him; but that on its own isn't enough; multiple independent sources have to provide non-trivial coverage, and that hasn't happened. The article has been deleted four times so far. I'm sorry if you feel that the guidelines are too harsh, but I don't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The guidelines are not too harsh, its your interpretation thats harsh. For example, here is an author entry Elizabeth Donald that is less prestigious, less verified, less published, and less notable than Randy Richards. And by the way, if an article on Randy Richards has been deleted 4 times, that means several contingents of people believed it needed to be put in, and that would ironically suggest he is notable. I mean, seriously dude, you seem awfully contrary for it not to appear like you are picking on this one person (whether you are or not). Malakai Joe (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:WAX. The existence of another article that doesn't meet the guidelines doesn't mean this one does. And the page having been deleted certainly doesn't suggest it's notable. I'd also point out that Elizabeth Donald has actually won an award, rather than coming in third. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but thats just my point. Your are judging Randy Richards ten times harsher that Elizabeth Donald. Winning the "2005 Darrell Award Winner for Best Midsouth Novella" is hardly a prestigious award. The Darrell Award web page suggests its some trivial secondary organization, which you said doesn't count. Anyone can throw up a web page and make up an award (it doesn't even have its own web page -- its a free site: http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.com/~timgatewood/sf/darrell/2005_results.html. So I ask again, why are you holding Randy Richards to a higher standard? It doesn't make any sense. Malakai Joe (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm judging Randy Richards against
WP:BIO back when Cryogenesis put his pages on wikipedia first, and he fails them now. Oddly, Cryogenesis used exactly the same file names as you and chose to upload a back cover, which is unusual. I wonder how he's getting on. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't try to twist this back on me. This is your vendetta, not mine. The file names were determined be the source, which is http://www.Dreadmire.com. I don't know who else uploaded similar files. The format comes from the message board. Malakai Joe (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not twisting this on anyone; I have no vendetta. I must ask you to
be civil. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ditto. Don't make unwarranted accusations.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what have I accused you of? You've done a lot of research and failed to find any substantial coverage. I applaud your efforts. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, in photography, third place counts as "winning an award". Malakai Joe (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through
WP:BIO
already, and I was sure the criteria was met. For example, it states...
  • "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That has been met here - TV news, newspaper articles, and a magazine article.
You omit the accompanying notes: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." and "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." None of the sources you quote are simultaneously non-trivial and focused on Richards. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The offline newspaper articles and magazine article is all about Randy Richards.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Award, yes. Significant? Its a rare, government award - you be the judge. Honors? Yes again! His photos are on tour throughout the U.S.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third place isn't an award. Sorry, it just isn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't they wouldn't call it the "LUMCON Third Place Photo Award". Third place is an award. Its not the best award, but its an award by its very definition. But there is still the matter of his photos on a national tour. As a photographer, you can't get a higher honor than that.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do they call it the LUMCON Third Place Photo Award? I thought they called it the Adult Landscape Award, and awarded it to Jill Krzycki, but liked Debbie Stevens' photo almost as much, and liked Richards' almost as much as that. So, in other words, he didn't win the award, and I'm dubious as to whether it's a "significant" award. Ditto the tour - it's being taken on tour by the "Louisiana Bucket Brigade"; hardly National Geographic. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sponsoring organization is not relevant. Its a 23,000 mile tour - hardly small potatoes. An award, third place or not, is still an award.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - it's entirely relevant. The distance travelled isn't what makes a tour significant enough to count here, it's the prestige behind it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Seems we have a winner - for over 10 years now, with books, articles, photographs, TV commercial acting, TV news, convention appearances - you name it.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the wide recognition here. If he were widely recognised, there would be sources to back it up; the ones in place are at best marginal. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His many local appearances on TV, both in news and commercials should be enough. The other sources are offline. Scanning and publishing them here for you to see might be a copyright violation, but you're being so obtuse I may have to risk it to prove they exist.Malakai Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask you again to be civil. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was being civil. I have no idea what you are referring to.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me "obtuse" is uncivil, even if you think it's true. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize. It not a word I would consider uncivil. It is simply a descriptive word, like contrary - also not an uncivil word. Must be a UK/US English thing.Malakai Joe (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it must. Calling someone by an unpleasant name, even if it is a descriptive word like "obtuse" or "contrary", would be considered uncivil here in the UK. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal or not, a million tiny ants add up one giant colony. As they say in court, "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". In other words, to quote the criteria, "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". Malakai Joe (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" not "multiple independent sources may be sufficient to prove notability". The article needs multiple, non-trivial secondary sources and so far, has none. You haven't even cited the offline evidence that you claim exists, even though you have been told how. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to cite using the format you suggested, but I could not get the formatting to work. I cited them using text only. Could you point me to a page that explains it in detail? As far as "multiple, non-trivial secondary sources ", I believe I have provided this in spades. Malakai Joe (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are usage instructions at
canvass for votes in an AFD, would you mind if I asked the editors at the RPG wikiproject to share their opinions here? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
To what end? If it is not acceptable to canvass for votes then I would mind, yes. I would prefer if this did not turn into a free-for-all. Its already gotten rather silly, and its just you and me debating - mostly about requiring ten times the normal notability requirements. As to the offline newspaper articles, I am awaiting an e-mail reply to find out what the exact titles are - that could take a day or few. Malakai Joe (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to get a consensus. If you've followed the link, you'd know it's acceptable to inform editors of ongoing discussions so long as you don't try to influence their decision or seek out editors who you believe will have a specific opinion. That's why I've added this debate to the list of game-related debates, and to the RPG noticeboard; I'd like to ask WP:RPG as well as it's seen by more people. I'm afraid AFDs are free for all - any interested editor is welcome to make an argument. So, may I post at WP:RPG? I'm not requiring anything more than the requirements of
WP:BIO; you may feel that's excessive, but those are the guidelines, and I don't feel that the article meets them. Nonetheless, other editors may have another perspective on how the guidelines should be interpreted. They may feel that the article meets those guidelines already, or they may feel that it never will. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Then why bother to ask?Malakai Joe (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they deserve a say in the matter! The decision on whether to delete the article isn't mine to make alone. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the haters are starting to show up, you might as well go ahead. At least the new people will be editors. And as I said, its your interpretation of
WP:BIO that is being applied to the harshest extreme. I could be wrong, but it appears that because of your past experiences with the subject of this article that you can't be objective. User:Malakai Joe|Malakai Joe]] (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
For a third time, please be civil. Telling me that I "can't be objective" is insulting, and if you're forced to stoop to that level of debate you can't expect to be taken seriously. Additionally, please do not alter comments that I've replied to; that is vandalism. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any changes I made to your edits was not intentional, and I apologize if I did - it was an error on my part. I am getting confused with all the text on this page, and an error can easily be made. Also, I was also not attempting to insult you. The comment was an accurate description. Accusing me of being some other use is insulting, but yet you continue to do it. Malakai Joe (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an "accurate description" to say that I "can't be objective", and it is uncivil and deliberately insulting to suggest otherwise. Saying you do not intend to insult does not excuse it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to be blunt here. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Malakai Joe is Randy Richards, based on the level of detail in the article on unsourced biographical data. Text like "He originally hails from Chalmette, Louisiana, the location of what is often called the Battle of New Orleans. His family is from Cades Cove, before the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was created" is not something that would be written by a disinterested third party about a person with this level of notoriety. Given that, this brings up
    WP:COI issues right off the bat. COI is not enough for an AFD by itself, so let's take a look at the claims to fame: 1) published an article in a specialty magazine. 2) the authoring of a book which is admittedly self-published. See the note at bottom of page here 3) running a non-notable (by WP's standards) website. 4) some minor commercial work for a local company. The "Cox Media" commercial had a 504 area code contact number and was targeted for people only in that area. 4) Taking some photographs of Katrina damage, which was covered by the local news of people in Katrina-damaged areas. Absolutely none of these rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please be civil. I am not Randy Richards. The biographical information comes from both his message board and website. As to the "self-published" reference I would disagree. Mr. Richards purchased the company 2 years after his book was published. From what I understand from their website they were pretty much leveled by Hurricane Katrina.Malakai Joe (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's rather curious that no record of "Spellbinder Games" exists prior Richard's Dreadmire book being dropped by Necromancer Games for plagiarism.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not being uncivil. I did not say anything disparaging about you or anyone -- other than to say that I believe you have a
autobiography. I also stated that COI is not enough for the delete. However, I stand by that delete based on the other things I've said. Please don't take it personally, Malakai Joe. This is nothing personal against you; I'm sure you are a fine person. We're debating the merits of the article, not you as a person. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In other words, you are calling me a liar, so I asked you to be civil. Please keep your rude accusations to yourself. All of this information is available by Google search, except the print articles. If I was Randy Richards, I would NOT have had to keep adding more and more references for the past 10 hours -- I would have just typed it all in one sitting.Malakai Joe (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since Richards has gone on record as saying that he is "not important enough to be on Wikipedia", I think we can deduce that MJ probably isn't the same person. I'm not sure whether or not to believe he isn't User:Cryogenesis, who originally posted this page up in 2006, but I'm not sure whether that matters. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given Richard's history, it's quite likely that he would publicly say one thing while using sockpuppets to push his own agenda.--Robbstrd (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't read him saying that he's not important enough to be on Wikipedia. It seemed more to me that he was taking a serious amount of real-time interest in the goings-on of his articles on Wikipedia, all-the-while feigning disinterest. However, it doesn't matter one whit. The COI thing is completely ancillary to this discussion. I'm sorry I even mentioned it. Let's not get sidetracked by it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I was reading the wrong posts. I see what you are referring to now. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not Cryogents. Do all Wikipedia articles require this much work, debate and suspicion? Elizabeth Donald doesn't have 1/10 this much notability, and there is no attached discussion of deletion notice. Dismiss her if your wish, but it seems odd. Very odd.Malakai Joe (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said about as much as I can say about Randy Richards. I believe he has enough notability to be on here, especially when compared to other author biographies already on here. This is my first Wikipedia entry, and very likely my last. I'm having a bad experience. The worst part is, I don't even care that much about him, his company, or his books - beyond finding them entertaining, I mean. I just wanted to participate. The WIkipedia training page said, "Be bold. Pick and topic and start typing!" Well I did, and I got suspicion, belittling, insults, outright contrariness. I'll check back in a week. If the article miraculously still up, then I will apologize and keep writing articles. If not, I'll know why, and I won't be back. Sorry for the rant, but I wanted readers to know why I am not participating on the discussion anymore. I've said all I can say, and much more than is normally required, apparently.Malakai Joe (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Threatening to leave wikipedia forever won't help this topic meet the notability guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:BIO, and it's been deleted before. That is all it takes.Undeath (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Except that the first time it was deleted, the reason given was that it was being vandalized too much. Thats hardly a reason to delete it. It should have been edit locked.70.177.43.254 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no credible evidence of notability Guy (Help!) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper citations added. That should be the end of it. Later.70.177.43.254 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm from Louisiana. I've seen the guy on TV and read about him in the newspaper. He's not a major celebrity. He is a well-known local entity. After a casual glance at other entries on Wikipedia Randy Richards is at least on par with them in terms of notability. Just my two cents. If being major celebrity what is required them I'll change my vote. 72.207.222.224 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarcrest (Talk | contribs) (→Works - Removed a book that hasn't been announced yet, per the subject's wishes -- please don't re-list it!)"

This speaks volumes; Malakai Joe modified her page for this point alone, then copied the page over to Wikia as well, and kept adding it back when it was removed. Again, very few people knew about this, I discovered it before and in talks with Elizabeth she removed the info from her blog. BUT. She never posted the title of the book, revealing that this must be Randy as he is the owner of Spellbinder by his own admissions. Quode (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may bring into question the article's origins but it has nothing to do with notability. 72.207.222.224 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The writeup appears specific and well documented, moreso than most biographies on Wikipedia. Whoever originally nominated the article for deletion likely has an axe to grind, like the poster that posted right before me. Its my opinion that the article meets the minimum requirements of
    WP:BIO if one is unbiased. And before anyone asks, yes I came here through Google on a search for local authors for our writer's faire. 72.207.202.73 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • In addition Using the web we find the following. The spellbinder message board pretty much has Randy posting to himself. No discussions, few members. Babel*con message board has 34 total members and the majority of posts are again, Randy’s.

The people and information listed as part of the World of Greyhawk Fan Club, “which once claimed to be "the largest Greyhawk fan organization in the world." The organization claimed among its members such luminaries as Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Rob Kuntz, Frank Mentzer, Len Lakofka and Jim Ward. In 1998 Randy sponsored the "Celebrity Greyhawk Dinner" and "Greyhawk Celebrity Panel Seminar." Has left no record, is never mentioned by any of the listed people shown or part of the shared 30 year history of Grayhawk. In fact all of Randies involvment with D&D and Grayhawk seems to have ended 10 years ago. Also, as an auther his 2 works are again seperated by 7 years with no detail as to what he has accomplished in the hobby during the lull. He did try to get his book published by Necromancer games, who rejected the manuscript. He then had rewritten the book, as noted when I sent a copy to NG for review and self published the work through his company Spellbinder.Quode (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Richards is not the only alleged liar: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Randy_Richards Is the gaming industry full of loons and haters? 72.207.222.224 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question could we get an admin to look this over? It seems like a snowball delete to me and it'd be nice to put an end to all this obvious sock puppetry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget WP:SNOW, this thing is two days overdue already. It should have been closed on Tuesday. This is one of the nastiest AFDs I've seen in a long time and the sooner an admin closes this thing (preferably by deleting it then salting it) the better. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nasty is right. And paranoid. They can't all be Randy Richards or his puppets. 68.11.140.249 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Ummm... yes... they all can actually. Every IP edit here comes from the same Cox Cable netblock originating from Baton Rouge or Chalmette, LA (save one which came out of Miami, FL). This includes the "I'm not a puppet" one the posted right below this one. Please don't play us for fools. We aren't stupid and I, personally, have very little tolerance for these kinds of games. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THAT is the key piece of information i needed. i promised myself i would stay out of this fracas because randy richards belongs to my science fiction group. i got here by following the trail of links. someone from the d&d wikipedia e-mailed randy a link to the same article over there. then he posted it to the star one delta yahoo group. i followed a link from there to the spellbinder games message board. from there it mentioned this article and its deletion discussion. there was no link so I googled it and found this. the s.o.d. group is based in baton rouge. it makes sense to me that most of the ip's would be from the same general area. it doesn't prove anything but it makes more sense than randy as a master hacker. 72.151.2.155 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment getting members of his science fiction club to votespam here is forbidden by
WP:SOCK just the same as doing it himself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep I'm not sure anyone even cares about citations or evidence at this point, but if you do, I can verify that Randy Richards was the focus of an article in the Advocate newspaper. He is the subject of an independent podcast too. I want to say RPG Radio. Check with them, but if its not, its some name like that. 72.219.30.82 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (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/Randy_Richards&oldid=1069021303"