Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Hunter Johnson (2nd nomination)

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. — TKD::Talk 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. Hunter Johnson

J. Hunter Johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

3-line vanity piece that fails notability per WP:BIO created in contravention of WP:COI guidelines on autobiography. This article has been prod'ed, de-prodded, speedied, de-speedied but association with role-playing games has not provided evidence of notability to date. --Gavin Collins 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable game designer. Will be adding references. Turlo Lomon 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a part of his bibliography. Should I start including references on each and every one of them or are they good? Turlo Lomon 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Other than promotional material, they do not appear to be independent periodical articles or reviews from outside the trade that would distinguish him as more than a writer who makes his living from writing games --Gavin Collins 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not commenting delete or keep, but why should someone important in the gaming world be reported outside that mileu? I don't remember that in any guideline or policy. SamBC(talk) 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you read WP:BIO, note that JHJ does not satisfy the following:

1. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;
2. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

I think you are confusing someone who writes games for a living (effectively a copywriter) with a someone who renowned throughout the gaming industry. My understanding is that the RPG book based games account for about 4% of the RPG industry sales, of which his books are probably only a tiny fraction. No matter how big a microfying glass you hold up to this 3-line biography, it is never going to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Gavin Collins 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing game books with marketing copy (the output of copywriters). Game books are no more marketing copy than novels are. I am curious, though, where you get the 4% claim. You should also pay attention to Turlo's note that the article is now expanded beyond three lines, through no fault of my own. -- JHunterJ 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article is a good deal more than three lines. If you think someone who writes games for a living is a copywriter you do not understand either term. As to your uncited claim that only 4% of RPG industry sales are book based games, that is clearly ridiculous to anyone who is at all familiar with the industry. Edward321 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this is still an issue I will be supplying the news reports from different articles that discuss his work (as requested in 2c). I am also really confused on the whole 4% figure mentioned above, because RPGs (different from wargames) should have closer to 96% book sales, mostly because it is nothing BUT books. Turlo Lomon 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article has been greatly expanded and sourced. WP:BIO covers quite a bit more ways that a person can be considered notable than the mere two selected by the nominator. Edward321 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Recent expansion/sourcing seems sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:38, 18 September 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.