Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Post

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. has clearly improved but is still borderline but consensus is to keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Post

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

Delete. This article relies entirely upon a single source, an interview which appeared in Dragon Magazine back in 1999. Interviews aren't generally great examples of "third party coverage" in my book, and I'm not seeing any serious notability here either. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dragon magazine has been held as a reliable reference in numerous discussion within the RPG field, and this user's recent string of anti-RPG AfDs is troubling. Hooper (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is insufficient in this context, hence the nomination. Your responses to the AFDs I've seen lately, mostly unfounded in any kind of editorial policy, is much more troubling. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dragon magazine is indeed a reliable source, and it is my belief that there are others out there. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, paucity of sources establishes that this one fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the record: Interviews have always (since 2001) been accepted as precisely the sort of third-party coverage required for BLPs, as long as the interview is subject to journalistic questioning and editorial review. Unless there is a drastic change of policy, interviews in reliable periodicals are valid sources. Whether this person is notable is entirely another issue, of which it is not clear to me. It's a marginal case in my mind. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article hangs its notability on a single interview in Dragon (magazine). To establish notability, I'd expect more coverage. As far as I can find, there is none. Additionally, Dragon magazine as a source is problematic, as it was published by TSR/WotC, and its contents were heavily skewed towards its own products. In other words, I am not convinced that its editorial policy is independent. As such, an interview of an illustrator employed by TSR appearing in Dragon Magazine with no other coverage falls well short of notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep [1] is a group interview and personally I think interviews with a single person (as the Dragon one) are a top notch source as they tend to provide bibliographic information. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to keep given discussion below. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- the entire article hinges upon that one source which, as Whpq points out, had an incentive to puff up the subject's importance. Reyk _YO! 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG as the topic has not "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources is plural in WP:GNG and its subsection defines sources as "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." I emphasized "mulitiple sources" as for an article that was created in 2006, most editors would expect more reliably sourced citations to establish or assert notability. There is no assertion of notability; no citations to establish it, and, I looked and could find no sources. This article previously had a notability tag on it and did not receive its one source until March 9, 2010. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I notice the nominator removed a considerable amount of content from the article, and then nominated it as insufficient. I'm not going to edit war and return it , but the fullest version is [2]; it was removed as poorly sourced, but it was the illustrator talking about his own work, which is appropriate material if not done in excess. Removing material can sometimes be done fairly to improve an article, and then one gives up the effort and nominates it, so I do not want to fail to AGF for something I may in some circumstances have done myself. As for the notability, the GNG is just a guide -- it works adequately in some fields, leads to absurd over-inclusion of material in others, and for yet other areas does not take into consideration that notable people, judged by the obvious importance of their work, may still not have the required sort of sources. This is an intersection of the area of creative professionals in computer related subjects--which appears to be have very poor conventional documentation in general with the field of commercial art, which seems unusually hard to source also. Making allowances, he seems to be notable in a common-sense way, which is sufficient to overcome the artificiality of the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BOZ and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to DGG's general comments, but don't see the application in this case. Here, we have a single source that is neither independent (he works for TSR), obviously reliable (I'm not saying it isn't, just that it hasn't been demonstrated to be and given its commercial nature is dubious), or significant (interviews are frequently found to be insufficient coverage "of"). I agree with DGG that commonsense exceptions need to be made, but I don't see how this qualifies. Delete. ^Bongo_matic 03:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was nominated for a Chesley Award; I've added a reference just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: Two nominations (I added another citation). I'd therefore recommend against deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like to assume good faith, but in line with DGG's comments, this nom appears not to be made in good faith. There are several external links that can be used as references. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. If we got rid of all BLPs that relied heavily on interviews, then we should all go home and shut down this website. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per WP:ANYBIO and Paul Erik' work. Very nicely done. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2010 (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.