This is a good topic nomination for the indie video game developer Asher Vollmer and his games. The two subarticles are his games that have garnered enough reliable, secondary source attention to warrant their own articles. It's a small topic, but I believe it meets the criteria, and will continue to expand as he makes more games over his lifetime. –
czar 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - good and complete. --PresN 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I am a bit skeptical of creating topics around people who just got kinda notable for 2 games. I propose having him instead be featured in the topic listed below here.
Nergaal (
talk) 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
But there's no such thing as "kinda notable"—he and his games are the subject of significant, independent coverage. For now, the topic is complete. –
czar 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support- covers the topic excellently. --Anarchyte 05:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – I am a bit unsure about this article because, despite being sourced well, it looks a little...short to provide the main coverage of its topic. By the last time when I looked at it, it felt short for me.
EDIT: I am sorry, but, for me, I keep thinking of it as a
stub, and I dislike having changed my vote from "Neutral" to "oppose", but, just, ignore me.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 09:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gamingforfun365, what? If you're saying the main article is short, like a stub, it was peer reviewed as a
good article, which requires
breadth of coverage. What more information (sourced from reliable outlets) is the article or topic missing? If you don't have specific concerns, I don't see how it can "fall short" apart from not liking short articles. Some article subjects do not have reams of sources (or do not otherwise require going into detail on minutiae so as to conflate length and rigor). –
czar 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
As in...I want to learn more about him, such as his early life, his personal life, and/or other things, not just his career. I am sorry for not being more specific...you know what? Forget about me, for I am probably thinking wrongly, BUT I AM glad that you were not very upset with me.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 22:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Okay. I admit that it does have potential, but I just think that we could mention more about his personal life, such as his religion, his possible spouse, etc., not just about his career.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 23:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
If you think the article shouldn't be a Good Article, I suggest taking it to
WP:GAN. And if that does happen, I would have to suspend this nomination until that GANs outcome is determined.
GamerPro64 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gamingforfun365, if no
reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't cover it. To cover Vollmer's religion and family situation would be a slew of
original research (and, I'd say,
undue weight) when he's known for being a small indie dev making small indie games. –
czar 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)reply
"if no
reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't [need to] cover it.", and that would be an excuse – a likable excuse – , for these articles could not be mentioned any further because no other information could be reliably sourced, and not everything which has been secondarily sourced reliably would be original research because we are not using primary sources, although I do not see how talking a little bit about these persons other than just their careers would be undue when other such articles as
Steve Jobs do it. Having said that, am I missing something about that? Entschuldigung, for this probably was just I as an autistic with creative differences, and I had ASSUMED that it could have been improved further, but, because this had probably achieved at maximum, I guess that I will change my vote to support. I regret causing some trouble by accident.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 04:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a good topic nomination for the indie video game developer Asher Vollmer and his games. The two subarticles are his games that have garnered enough reliable, secondary source attention to warrant their own articles. It's a small topic, but I believe it meets the criteria, and will continue to expand as he makes more games over his lifetime. –
czar 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - good and complete. --PresN 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I am a bit skeptical of creating topics around people who just got kinda notable for 2 games. I propose having him instead be featured in the topic listed below here.
Nergaal (
talk) 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
But there's no such thing as "kinda notable"—he and his games are the subject of significant, independent coverage. For now, the topic is complete. –
czar 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support- covers the topic excellently. --Anarchyte 05:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – I am a bit unsure about this article because, despite being sourced well, it looks a little...short to provide the main coverage of its topic. By the last time when I looked at it, it felt short for me.
EDIT: I am sorry, but, for me, I keep thinking of it as a
stub, and I dislike having changed my vote from "Neutral" to "oppose", but, just, ignore me.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 09:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gamingforfun365, what? If you're saying the main article is short, like a stub, it was peer reviewed as a
good article, which requires
breadth of coverage. What more information (sourced from reliable outlets) is the article or topic missing? If you don't have specific concerns, I don't see how it can "fall short" apart from not liking short articles. Some article subjects do not have reams of sources (or do not otherwise require going into detail on minutiae so as to conflate length and rigor). –
czar 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
As in...I want to learn more about him, such as his early life, his personal life, and/or other things, not just his career. I am sorry for not being more specific...you know what? Forget about me, for I am probably thinking wrongly, BUT I AM glad that you were not very upset with me.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 22:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Okay. I admit that it does have potential, but I just think that we could mention more about his personal life, such as his religion, his possible spouse, etc., not just about his career.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 23:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)reply
If you think the article shouldn't be a Good Article, I suggest taking it to
WP:GAN. And if that does happen, I would have to suspend this nomination until that GANs outcome is determined.
GamerPro64 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gamingforfun365, if no
reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't cover it. To cover Vollmer's religion and family situation would be a slew of
original research (and, I'd say,
undue weight) when he's known for being a small indie dev making small indie games. –
czar 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)reply
"if no
reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't [need to] cover it.", and that would be an excuse – a likable excuse – , for these articles could not be mentioned any further because no other information could be reliably sourced, and not everything which has been secondarily sourced reliably would be original research because we are not using primary sources, although I do not see how talking a little bit about these persons other than just their careers would be undue when other such articles as
Steve Jobs do it. Having said that, am I missing something about that? Entschuldigung, for this probably was just I as an autistic with creative differences, and I had ASSUMED that it could have been improved further, but, because this had probably achieved at maximum, I guess that I will change my vote to support. I regret causing some trouble by accident.
Gamingforfun365 (
talk) 04:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)reply