Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hartman

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 redirect to Frogdice. Black Kite 20:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hartman

Fails WP:BIO, specifically:

General criterion: the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject- zero news ghits for "Michael Hartman" Frogdice, 23 ghits for "Michael Hartman" Frogdice -wikipedia, and 149 ghits for "Michael Hartman" threshold -wikipedia. There just isn't a whole lot talking about this guy out there, and even less of it independent of him.
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them- No evidence of this can be found- while Threshold (online game) may have awards, he does not (see WP:NOTINHERITED).
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. No evidence of meeting this can be found.

Additionally, the article fails WP:NOR and WP:V. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although its true I am not an expert in this subject, the reason for failure to meet BIO given are wrong: ghits is not a reason for deletion, an award for a game someone wrote is an award to the person in all reasonable senses, and a contribution to major games is an enduring contribution. A more general problem, is the odd assertion that one article must meet every possible part of the bio factors. I do not see the claimed OR.)DGG (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

based on the information below, it would seem the best course is to merge with the article for the company. DGG (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Sorry, I'll be more specific. I didn't mean ghits as a criterion for deletion, rather as a suggestion that there can't be any assumed notability as there appears to be no "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Taking the time to look at the results for 23 ghits for "Michael Hartman" Frogdice -wikipedia, for example, there are no items that meet WP:RS. The original research here is especially evident in the last two paragraphs of the current article, speaking of the subject's influences and his notoriety in online gaming circles. These are completely unattributed and unattributable. And as to the award, I'd like to remark that they're of indeterminate notability; in the Threshold (online game) article, the "award" from TopMudSites.com appears to only be its ranking based on total users, while the awards from The Mud Journal evidently cannot be verified as their site has long disappeared and is not in The Internet Archive; failing WP:V. As to the Computer Games Magazine mention, there's no reference to back it up, so we can't even establish the significance of the mention for either the game or for this subject. I'm not asserting he needs meet every criterion, rather that he fails every one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unattrib uted is one thing, unattributable another.

Well, in all fairness, I checked LexisNexis, EBSCO and generally searched around the 'net for info on man or MUD, but turned up precious little data in reliable sources, none of which confirmed the award-winning status of either. While "unattributable" is a rather absolute term, I don't mean to use it lightly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frogdice as he is not notable aside from his involvement with that company. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:20, 21 September 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.