Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neill Corlett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neill Corlett

Neill Corlett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fancruft. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeJap Translations. Non notable ROM translator. No reliable sources. Nothing that suggests notability. If he's "well-known" then there should be sources. I would also note that due to the nature of their work, the Google Test is a poor judge of notability. Misterdiscreet 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Person in question satisfies the criteria for notability in that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, specifically, his organizational and technical contributions in translating what are considered some of the most popular videogames of an era. Neill's work in video game translation and other projects is, above all, a unique example of a way in which the internet has transformed interaction with digital entertainment - enabling passionate individuals to enhance content in unforeseen ways and share their work with others.

    The aforementioned criterion alone satisfies Wikipedia's notability standard, but I will respond to arguments about lack of sources: Due to the legal uncertainty of fan-translations, it cannot be expected that this subject will receive much coverage in the media. However, some of Neill Corlett's work has received mention in a book from a reliable publisher: Carless, Simon (2004). Gaming Hacks. O'Reilly, p. 267. ISBN 0596007140. cab 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Corlett has also been mentioned by major video game website IGN for some of his non-translation work (http://xbox.ign.com/objects/680/680440.html). Also, there is no reason why the nature of the subject does not detract from the credibility of the Google Test; if anything, it bolsters its credibility since the creative material involved and the necessary means to observe it can only be obtained through the internet, therefore representing the subjects' primary domain of interest.

    In case there is any question about the notability of the games translated by Neill Corlett: observe the length of both Japanese and English wikipedia entries for Seiken Densetsu 3 and Final Fantasy III, which provides, at the very least, some measure of popularity of these games. Also note that the franchises of both are ongoing and popular to the point that they possess wide-spread name-recognition and led to the creation of a high-budget film based on one. Additionally, in recent years, Final Fantasy III was deemed popular enough to justify its commercial rerelease on the Nintendo DS.

    Finally, the fact that Neill Corlett produced a translation of an extremely popular game years before the company that created it did (possibly due to his influence) is itself unique and noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.97.106.12 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep How could a non-notable subject get an article created about it ten years after the fact? FWIW, I also disagree with the outcome of the DeJap AfD and I'll try to reverse the outcome of that AfD after this and RPGe conclude, per WP:DRV. 209.209.214.5 15:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP - Notability only exists within a very narrow community, not a public figure. Not enough public information available to create an actual biographical article. No independent sources to satisfy WP:N, WP:RS or WP:V. Finally, I know Neill and he has expressed a desire to have the article deleted. -- Kesh 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Neill's alleged desire to have this article deleted is irrelevant, just as was Daniel Brandts opinions in the many AfD's he had. Further, most academics have notability only within a very narrow community. So to do a lot of mathematical theorems and algorithms, yet most of those have wikipedia articles. Not to mention pokemon, most TV shows (there's an article on every single Lost episode - you can't those episodes are notable to anyone outside of the very narrow community of people who actually enjoy that show, can you?) 209.209.214.5 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. Per BLP, no, his opinion is not irrelevant. The closing admin can consider or reject that when weighing their decision. Finally, the article does not cite any independent sources per WP:V. I've amended my !vote as such, since it apparently was not clear enough. Neill's desire to have the article removed is only icing on the cake, and your points do not address the policy problems this article has. -- Kesh 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP,WP:N,WP:RS --Fredrick day 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • throwing around links doesn't constitute an argument. see WP:JUSTAPOLICY (from the page Kesh linked to) 209.209.214.5 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged --Fredrick day 05:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • interesting. Kesh can link to it but i can't. whatever. i'll just quote it here, instead. 209.209.214.5 06:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Only slightly better than just a vote, this also does not provide other editors with specific reasoning why the article should be deleted. Although the article might be in violation of the policy or guideline referred to, no explanation is supplied on why the article violates that particular policy. It is also good to remember that in many cases an article might be changed so that it no longer violates the policy and in those cases it might not have to be deleted at all. Try to explain to other editors how this relates to a particular policy and how that policy supports your vote. Naturally, this also applies on quoting policies to support keeping an article.
Imagine that your own username got blocked, with the reason being a vague wave at policy, "Violates WP:USERNAME", giving no indication of which specific rule it broke. You might have no idea of what to change, of how to make it acceptable. You'd want more detail than that. Likewise, please give others your detailed reasons for objecting to their work, so they needn't try to read your mind.
Note that it is harder to explain why an article does not meet a policy or guideline, as that would be similar to proving a negative. Still, rather than merely writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - no sources cited or could be found with a web search" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability - only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts." It's often possible to pinpoint specific violations. For instance, an article that includes a copyright notice goes against WP:COPYRIGHT.
Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above.
  • Delete - Wiki cannot have unsourced articles. The AfD at hand is not about the subject, but the article, which is entirely original research, unless well-sourced. the_undertow talk 00:52, 5 July 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.