Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Swain (game designer)

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. Consensus is that LEvalyn has improved the article sufficiently to show it meets the criteria for inclusion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Swain (game designer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only references are him talking. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1], [2], both look promising. I suspect there's more, will look for it later. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indicated by Myself and Darth_Mike below, the sources listed appear to be invalid. PerryPerryD 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and Video games. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Citations are all directly from the websites that they mention, instead of actual sources. The article is written like a resume, No photo of the person is attached, Citations are not listed on the bottom of the page ¨ He is the founder of two venture-backed game companies.¨ What are these companies? where are these companies? Lack of an infobox containing information like DOB, Place of Birth, And other information in regards to him. This article has had 14 years to resolve this basic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ Head is not clearly defined. Certian claims are mentioned once without citation, article does not go into detail about who Chris was as a person, only his career. I believe we need to WP:TNT @Sandstein PerryPerryD 21:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Issues i have listed appear to either have been resolved, or have been confirmed to not be issues that justify an AfD, Changed to Keep. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. Of the two sources linked by Jclemens[3], I cannot get the first one to work and the second one is a blog (and isn't significant coverage, anyhow). -- Mike 🗩 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into the first one, it requires an account to view, which kind of falls into original research i believe, so it looks like both of these sources are invalid. PerryPerryD 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading paywalled articles in EBSCO is not original research. I was not able to follow Jclemens' first link either, but I found other very promising coverage. The trick is to subtract "NFL" and other keywords that clutter you with information about the other Chris Swain. He has keynoted IGC twice (newspaper coverage the first time too, but archived in Factiva which isn't linkable). He's discussed as a "well-known game designer" and "a gaming industry pioneer". For WP:NAUTHOR, his book, Game Design Workshop, not only has 600+ citations (supporting WP:NPROF?), it has WP:NBOOK reviews [4][5]. If we went through all of his individual games and hunted down their reviews, too (like this one, that would add up to quite a lot for NAUTHOR. The current state of the article is pretty bad, but that is not a reason for deletion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently improving the article and would like to note that it actually has quite a lot of very sensible independent, reliable sources -- they were just included as external links rather than proper footnotes, disguising them. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having finished my polish of the article, there was less sigcov of him as a person readily to hand than I would have liked, but he is consistently mentioned in coverage of his widely-covered works over a career of many decades, for a pass of WP:CREATIVE criteria 3. Note that this SNG does not require biographical coverage of the creator if their works have significant coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not change the issues i stated above. PerryPerryD 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn "Well Known" Unfortunately, Chris Swain would not fall under this catagory as he is not well known enough for a WP:CREATIVE#3 PerryPerryD 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I literally quoted RS calling him “well-known”. Anyway, WP:CREATIVE#3 does not require him to be “well known”. The criteria actually states that someone is notable if The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant … collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I have provided RS reviews for many of Swain’s works to support this criteria, here and in the article. Many, many more reviews are available, including for works not currently mentioned in the article. These sources address the issues you raised: the works are no longer cited only to their own websites, and these sources are more accessible and more reliable than the 2 provided by Jclemens. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are you referring to the criteria that it could be a significant or well-known work or collective body of work? That is about the work, not him. Usually it's reviews that demonstrate a work is significant or well-known. In this case, I think his three most significant works are probably the book, The Redistricting Game, and Ecotopia, all of which have lots of reviews. Probably lots to find for NetWits too, as one of the first online multiplayer games, but it's so early coverage is likely in print. Technically someone can pass this criteria with just one important work, but I prefer to show there is a substantial body of works (otherwise you might as well just have an article on the work.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now enough independent references to keep this, thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesnt quite fix the issues i stated above. @Rathfelder PerryPerryD 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion discussion, not a GA nomination. It doesn't matter that there is no photo or infobox, no matter how old the article is. -- asilvering (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in that case ignore my comment. Keep PerryPerryD Talk To Me 13:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerryPerryD You should probably strike your Delete vote in your initial comment to make that clearer for the person closing this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the advice! @Asilvering PerryPerryD Talk To Me 01:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems as well referenced as many academics. Rathfelder (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References arent everything. PerryPerryD 18:09, 14 March 2022 (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.