Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Hubbard

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. Certainly there is a need for better sourcing, but notability is clearly established. The issue of COI, while a cause for watching the article for POV, has no affect on notability. Pastordavid (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Hubbard

Conrad Hubbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I just want to point out that the majority of the edits have been made by 24.98.24.17, which resolves to Atlanta, Georgia--the location of Conrad's employer, WWGS. Additionally, most edits by this person have been regarding Conrad Hubbard, White Wolf games, and the names "Conrad" and "Hubbard". I suspect very strongly that Conrad Hubbard himself is making these edits--and, if not, it is someone who has a close business or personal relationship with him. This is a conflict of interest. I also question Mr. Hubbard's notability for inclusion; as stated below, he is a web designer and writer for a small genre publisher. I am hereby nominating this page for deletion. Guy Ruffian (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Amazon lists 10 books which he wrote/co-wrote, so it's conceivable that he may be notable and independent coverage could be found. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as this smells like a bad faith nomination. The article was tagged for deletion by User:66.31.27.94 and posted here by a SPA. Nominator would do well to take note that (1) COI is not in itself a reason for deletion, and (2) it is customary and considerate to notify interested parties of AfD nominations. As the nominator clearly identified the IP primarily responsible for writing the article, I have notified that IP of this discussion. Maralia (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced better. there seem to be 35 books altogether, so he's probably a very notable game guide writer. It should be possible to find some reviews. Some people are careless about notifying principle authors, and I think a few actually dont consider IPs should necessarily be notified at all., so I would normally still AGF, but looking at the article talk page does raise some questions. What we need is a bot. DGG (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC) B
• Weak delete. Google News Archives and Google Scholar have come up with nothing on him and the article contains no third party sources. However, if sources were found, I would support the retention of the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included on the WikiProject Role-playing games to-do list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He is the author of multiple books that are sold in many places. While I understand this article is poorly sourced and not the best article, the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. While the quality of the article is a possible argument for deletion, upon reading the talk page, I can see that there has been questionable edits done, which prevents an article from growing properly. Hopefully, under proper guidance, this article can grow to become much better. As for the conflict of interest, it becomes a touchy subject. If the author is the topic, the only moment his contribution can become a conflict is when the subject starts deleting information that is true and sourced. Otherwise, I doubt the addition of true information is a nuisance, since it becomes easier to reference. Youkai no unmei (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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.