Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon J. Key

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon J. Key

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. The only book reference I was able to find was a repackaged Wikipedia article. ^Bongo_matic 11:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (editor contested PROD) After barely 48 hours back in article space (and almost 18 months since being PRODed), I'd say that WP:BEFORE would suggest that deletion is inappropriate because the article subject is a legitimate redirect to The Fourth Dimension. I left the notability tag on the article for a reason: to alert other editors to search for sources. Also, apologies for this typo where I removed the AfD message with an apparent copy of the edit summary (since restored by Hellknowz). I'm continuing to seek further sources. -- Trevj (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging as an alternative to deletion is done "particularly if the topic name is a likely search term." This doesn't appear to be the case here. It's also used when the article has been linked to, etc. I see no rationale for this in the context of this article. ^Bongo_matic 07:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - that's your opinion. I also note at WP:BEFORE that If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. In this instance, I think "recently restored" is a near equivalent to "recently created". -- Trevj (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would expect someone (other than the creator) who requests undeletion of an inadequately sourced article would do so having already identified sources and prepared to add them without delay. In this case, the specific request for undeletion suggested that sources would be forthcoming, and the deletion discussion was initiated a full two days later than the undeletion (and only after a good faith, but unsuccessful, attempt to identify sources). ^Bongo_matic 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found an interview with Key from the Nov '88 issue of The Micro User and will add it when I have more time. Thanks for your patience. -- Trevj (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to be able to include this within the next day or two: the magazine in question still has to be unpacked. -- Trevj (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep there seem to be just barely sufficient sources, for his work as a games author. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? To me there are "just barely sufficient sources" to establish V, and not even close to establishing N. What makes you think otherwise? ^Bongo_matic 03:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (editor contested PROD, as noted above), per WP:CREATIVE and with reference to the sources now included. -- Trevj (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The coverage is just very weak. The ones available online that I could actually check, either seem unreliable, or just passing mentions. Redirect if anyone really thinks they'd use him as a search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I've added the additional refs from sources not available online. Notability isn't established solely by reference to online sources. -- Trevj (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say otherwise. I just commented on what I could verify. If I could access hardcopies from the 90's, I would. But I can't. So all I can do is comment on what I can verify. These trends make me wonder if those other ones are trivial as well... Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for popping back here. For info, the interview cited (entitled "Key to success") is spread over 2 pages. Admittedly because it includes 3 screenshots, a half-page ad and a box-out regarding the subsequent month's coverdisk containing a demo of his Clogger game, it's not hugely in-depth. However, it should be classed as significant coverage. The other offline refs are from reviews of Key's games. The quotations demonstrate that he [...] is regarded as an important figure, per WP:CREATIVE. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl !vote - I don't have the ability to verify the other sources, so I shouldn't really take a stance on this one. Pretend I never commented, unless someone verifies those hard-copy sources are trivial or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How jolly decent of you! Thanks for generously reconsidering your position. -- Trevj (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone is genuinely concerned about the printed sources, I should be able to arrange a few crappy tablet photos, if there's a quick way to upload or someone would like them by email or anything. In fact, I could possibly get away with hosting such images as attachments at an off-wiki forum. -- Trevj (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2012 (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.