Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Bell

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Ifnord 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Bell

Borderline notable computer programmer and book author. Possible vanity concern.

• Weak delete. I am nominating the article, but only find it a weak delete. The article is a slight vanity piece, given its creation by the subject (but anyone who knows me knows I don't take WP:AUTO as broad dogma). His 1998 book seems to bring it to borderline notability, but unless he has other publications, I think it falls below the threshold. The various programming jobs seem non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  Followup: Java Game Programming for Dummies is Amazon.com rank 809,649 (quite possibly higher closer to publication). Doug Bell is second listed author, so I presume Wayne Holder is the primary author. It appears to be in print.[1]

  It was straight dual authorship (we each wrote half the chapters), but somebody has to be listed first. Wayne was the initial contact point with the Dummies people, so he got to be listed first. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He wrote a book- Someone may want to know more about this author. Not as notable as others, but I'd keep it. Colby Peterson 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment User: Doug Bell is doing a lot of defending of an article that's about himself, that he started himself. That just seems to me the definition of a vanity article. Changing vote to weak delete.

• Keep He was the lead programmer for four projects too. Ruby 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The book has little to do with my notoriety—base your vote on the games where I was the principle developer. Also, you might find my comment at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters#Regarding Ward Churchill, please review WP:NPOV interesting. BTW, I would have expanded the article (and will if so requested), but I didn't want it to be a vanity piece and would rather that someone else do it. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  The subject of this article apparently has the incorrect belief that my nomination of this article on AfD has something to do with an editing disagreement he and I may have had on an unrelated topic. The merit of an article on Doug Bell is completely unrelated to any editing either he or I may do on Wikipedia; moreover, I urge voters to put the WP:AUTO issue in perspective: a subject's notability is not affected by whether they contributed to their (auto)biography; there is merely a heightened concern that the article meet WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in such cases (IMNSHO).

  Looking at notability guidelines at WP:BIO#People still alive, the book authorship is an explicit factor recommended in consideration of notability. Job titles as software developer or project lead are not explicitly considered there, though I think someone like Andrew Tridgell should certainly be considered notable even if he had nothing other than his software development projects (which is still the main focus of his article). While the biography subject may be most proud of things other than book authorship, that does not necessarily mean that readers find those things most notable. That said, as written, I see no WP:NPOV concern with the Doug Bell article, only a possible notability theshold concern. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, pointing people to the games I developed has nothing to do with what I am most proud of, but rather what I am most well known for. The book sold somewhere between 12,000 to 15,000 copies in the U.S. and the games had combined sales in over a dozen countries of a couple several million units—back when a million units was almost unheard of—so as you can see, there would be a somewhat larger exposure to the games than the book. There are still (amazing to me) quite a few active fan/clone/derivitive sites devoted to the Dungeon Master series nearly 20 years after the game was first released, but as far as I know, none devoted to the book. There was, and to a small degree still is, a major cult following of the game that lasted well past its market dominance (and again, no cult following for the book ever materialized). I was interviewed for scores of magazines and even appeared on a few TV shows for my involvement in designing computer games, but other than a couple book signings, I didn't get any publicity for the book. All of the games were at one time or another a number-one selling game, and in the case of Dungeon Master, a seminal work in the history of computer games; the book, alas, set no sales records, and while well-received, would not stand out in a collection of books on designing computer games. Anyway, I'm not here to lobby as I'd rather this is decided on its own merits without regard to the fact that I happen to be active on Wikipedia, but it is just kind of curious that nobody has apparently done the type of research that I see on other bio AfDs. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  The difference, to my mind (and probably in the mind of the writers of WP:BIO), is that when you read a book you are prominently and conscpicuously presented with the author's name. Book in hand, it's logical to wonder "who is this author?" When you play a video game, you generally do not see the names of creators; I guess some have some "credits key-combo" to reveal some screen of this information, and maybe it's in small print in the manual. A million-selling video game deserves its own article, but its creators are semi-anonymous (though I suppose there are special industry forums where game developers are discussed, given awards, etc). Likewise, my "Black-and-Decker 8" Flat-Head Screwdriver" probably sold 50 million units, and somebody designed it (there's probably a lot that goes into choosing and testing materials and processes, quite likely patents involved). But this person who developed my screwdriver doesn't get an article on that basis (though s/he may well get industry-specific awards, reputation, etc). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I don't want to be drawn into responding on this page as I don't think my participation here is appropriate and in my opinion I've already been drawn into crossing a line I'd rather not have, so I intend to make this my last addition to this page unless there is some exceedingly good reason to do otherwise. I will only mention that the computer game industry is much more like the movie industry than the tool industry, and similar to the movie industry some people are interested in who makes the movies and some people just watch the movies. (For that matter, some people care who wrote the book and some people just read the books.) Lulu, if you want to discuss any of these issues with me further, please use my talk page. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  The analogies among industries Doug Bell makes might be roughly correct (or might not be). I'm not part of either industry, nor part of e.g. the hand tool industry. I do sometimes marvel at how clever some little bit of industrial design is (or at how stupidly it was done), and sort of wonder who was behind it). But there seems to be a prominent notability distinction among where authorship is prominently assigned and where it is not. For example, someone copy-edited, and someone else bound/printed Doug's book. The book would not exist without those steps either; yet those people are not judged notable by WP:BIO. I can't really say what "some people are interested in", but try to follow the guidelines in WP:BIO in determining notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not every published author deserves a wikipedia page. Same goes for game developers. I don't see anything notable about this person. He played a part in designing some games....so what? --Pierremenard 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Involved with some classic (and notable) games, book published; maybe borderline, but good enough for me. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for Wikipedia. And it's not like his self-authored article links to his resumé or anything. - Outerlimits 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The book he co-authored isn't the real issue. He played an important role in a classic video game series, makes it more than worthwhile. - dharmabum (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not in favor of having articles of everybody associated with creating some game, but a lead developer of four certainly clears the bar by my book. Keep. I understand the issue that he's written the article himself, which is generally discouraged, but I find it laudable that he has written a concise and neutral piece about himself, as opposed to some other people who write ludicrous self-aggrandizement here. Radiant_>|< 12:15, 29 January 2006 (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.