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.
Previous AfD details - My "reclosing" of AFD1 from "delete" to "no consensus" was absolutely unconventional and understandably Czar disagreed, which is prefectly reasonable. I'm certainly fine with thisAfD2. For more background on my decision to restore and reclose after AfD1, see Matt Furniss's (allegedly) request for restoration:
User talk:Salvidrim!/Q2 2015 Archive#Matt Furniss page, deleted?. ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Reference 1 is disingenuously listed. It is not as indicated, but is just a user registration form. Red flag if the article relies on this. Reference 2 is an old Sega 16 interview, which did not suggest notability then and nor does it now. Reference 3 is dead and was just a database, so no indication of notability then or now. Reference 4 is a kickstarter appeal for money from an author other than the subject, who is just obliquely referenced once in a list with others. So, we have only one potential reference which is from a non-authoritative source that suggests that the subject did his job like everyone else. Even if that suggested notability - which it does not - it is insufficient.--
Rpclod (
talk)
18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Those topics (meant MK instead of FE) weren't chosen randomly—they're the works
associated with his career and ostensibly where most could be written about his contributions. (Either way, I'm not advocating for a redirect.) czar19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Still no significant coverage from anything resembling a
reliable source (i.e, Sega-16 enthusiast site is not an RS). Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ohnoitsjamie (
talk •
contribs)
20:00, 27 February 2016 (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.
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.
Previous AfD details - My "reclosing" of AFD1 from "delete" to "no consensus" was absolutely unconventional and understandably Czar disagreed, which is prefectly reasonable. I'm certainly fine with thisAfD2. For more background on my decision to restore and reclose after AfD1, see Matt Furniss's (allegedly) request for restoration:
User talk:Salvidrim!/Q2 2015 Archive#Matt Furniss page, deleted?. ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Reference 1 is disingenuously listed. It is not as indicated, but is just a user registration form. Red flag if the article relies on this. Reference 2 is an old Sega 16 interview, which did not suggest notability then and nor does it now. Reference 3 is dead and was just a database, so no indication of notability then or now. Reference 4 is a kickstarter appeal for money from an author other than the subject, who is just obliquely referenced once in a list with others. So, we have only one potential reference which is from a non-authoritative source that suggests that the subject did his job like everyone else. Even if that suggested notability - which it does not - it is insufficient.--
Rpclod (
talk)
18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Those topics (meant MK instead of FE) weren't chosen randomly—they're the works
associated with his career and ostensibly where most could be written about his contributions. (Either way, I'm not advocating for a redirect.) czar19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Still no significant coverage from anything resembling a
reliable source (i.e, Sega-16 enthusiast site is not an RS). Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ohnoitsjamie (
talk •
contribs)
20:00, 27 February 2016 (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.