Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puma Man (game modder)

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 - Yomangani^talk 11:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puma Man (game modder)

A game modder is not someone who creates computer games, but only creates expansion sets for them. It is possible that some member of this class may achieve encyclopedic notability for that, but I don't see evidence of it here. Note: I am listed as the creator of this article, but only because I moved the material that kept getting added to the unrelated article The Pumaman to its own article. Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Antaeus Feldspar, You've already nominated the article for deletion, you don't need to do it twice scope_creep 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a reason that I got into the habit of separating my nomination (if it was mine) from my "vote". Very often, important information comes up during the course of an AfD which significantly affects the votes already cast (if, for example, the article was thought to be a hoax and unambiguous proof that it is real has surfaced). That information should be put up with the original nomination at the top, while "votes" should go in chronological order. Separating the two allows this to be done cleanly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article should NOT be deleted. Aside the fact that it is a small article, it is also verifiable by no less than 6 reference links to its accuracy. There are also several other encyclopedic content about game mods and modders on wiki, examples: Weapons Factory User:Blacken/Drafts/InfiltrationMod Enemy Territory Fortress to name a few. --Pumalegacy 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of the "few" that you name as examples, one of them is only a draft. It's not an example of the community coming to consensus that this is encyclopedic content, because the community probably hasn't even been made aware of its existence yet! And all three of your examples are about the game mods themselves, not game modders. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could see an argument for an article on GIANTS, as it's a fairly noteworthy mod, but I don't believe its author meets WP:BIO. Shimeru 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I dunno but I do not think scope_creep nominated this for deletion. I could be wrong, tho. Please confirm scope_creep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumalegacy (talk • contribs)
• Comment. Not entirely sure what you're talking about here. Antaeus is the nominator for this AfD, and an article on GIANTS doesn't appear to exist and hasn't been nominated to my knowledge. Shimeru 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An article for GIANTS should be started... I'm not sure how to do that excactly :( Btw, @ Antaeus, here is an example of a game mod developer listed on wiki Black Widow Games. There are others but I'm too lazy to find them right now. :p --Pumalegacy 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting article. I didn't actually know that there were professional companies who worked for the likes of Sony Pictures to develop game mods, but it appears there are. However, I would say that there's a difference in notability between a hobbyist and a professional company whose clients include Sony Pictures, even if they are working in the same field. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. The mod itself might be notable enough for an article, but this guy doesn't appear to be. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 20:25, 20 November 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.