Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Brown (programmer)
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 Keep. (non-admin closure). A strong argument has been made that this article satisfies the guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals. Darkspots (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald Brown (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Eamon (computer game) and SwordThrust may be notable, but the programmer behind is definitely not. Jobjörn (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Jobjörn (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't understand. Why is he "definitely not" notable? You've said the games he's written are notable, it would follow that the developer is. --Canley (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would not. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria - it's very clear! He is definitely not notable because there is no published, reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject, reliable secondary source material that he is the subject of. A crude example: while Carl Linnaeus is notable, his father is not, even though the father's child is notable. Eamon and SwordThrust are like the children of Donald Brown. Jobjörn (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous example. I am well aware of the "notability is not inherited" guideline with regards to notable people and their families, but to compare a subject's notable achievements (artistic works and the like) to children is a bizarre interpretation of the notability guideline. I presume you are saying that you have been unable to find on Google any biographical reference details other than references to Eamon and Swordthrust. --Canley (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly. What, do you think I missed some book written about him? Some academic essay? Magnus Manske has made substantial contributions to a software far more notable than Eamon and SwordThrust - MediaWiki itself. Is there an article on Manske? No, it's a redirect to the article on MediaWiki. None of the authors of Wget, including the current maintainer Micah Cowan, has their own articles. Their involvement in these notable software products do not warrant an article on themselves. Anyhow, my interpretation of the notability guideline works perfectly fine without the example. There is still no published, reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject, reliable secondary source material that he is the subject of. Jobjörn (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all, but is that your criterion for sources (books and academic essays)? I've added two articles, one about Eamon and one about his work with Spymac. Citing lack of articles on Manske and Cowan seems like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument though. --Canley (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly. What, do you think I missed some book written about him? Some academic essay? Magnus Manske has made substantial contributions to a software far more notable than Eamon and SwordThrust - MediaWiki itself. Is there an article on Manske? No, it's a redirect to the article on MediaWiki. None of the authors of Wget, including the current maintainer Micah Cowan, has their own articles. Their involvement in these notable software products do not warrant an article on themselves. Anyhow, my interpretation of the notability guideline works perfectly fine without the example. There is still no published, reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject, reliable secondary source material that he is the subject of. Jobjörn (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous example. I am well aware of the "notability is not inherited" guideline with regards to notable people and their families, but to compare a subject's notable achievements (artistic works and the like) to children is a bizarre interpretation of the notability guideline. I presume you are saying that you have been unable to find on Google any biographical reference details other than references to Eamon and Swordthrust. --Canley (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would not. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria - it's very clear! He is definitely not notable because there is no published, reliable, intellectually independent, independent of the subject, reliable secondary source material that he is the subject of. A crude example: while Carl Linnaeus is notable, his father is not, even though the father's child is notable. Eamon and SwordThrust are like the children of Donald Brown. Jobjörn (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge and redirect to Eamon (computer game). It isn't that his achievements aren't notable, it's that he himself has not been the subject of the coverage of his notable products. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect as above. Finishing a game is a fantastic achievement, but it doesn't automatically make you as notable as your creation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals, which appears below the "basic criteria" section cited above, he is indeed notable as a creative professional. He originated the concept of Eamon and implemented it by writing the core of the software as well as the initial adventures; and his work has been the subject of various reviews, and is certainly a significant work within the context of gaming systems. Omnedon (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If multiple works are notable, then so is the author. The relevant rule is common sense, if that still matters at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. Someone's creations are not their children. If someone is famous then their parents would not become notable is a valid fact. It's like saying, his computer is not notable, just because that computer made those games and applications. Just as his computer would not be notable , nor would someone's parents or family, but the father of those games isn't Donald Brown, its the computer! Nevertheless, I disagree with you on that fact. That's all I wanted to say.Warrior4321talkContribs 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As noted earlier, Donald Brown meets the criteria for creative professionals. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.