Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teeuwynn Woodruff

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teeuwynn Woodruff

Teeuwynn Woodruff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Based on current sourcing and likely availability of other sources. Although they have written for the Wired, not much has been written about them. I searched 7 pages deep into Google and didn't find significant coverage, no result at all on JSTOR or NYT. One book they authored and besides that only appearing in a name list together with other people, but not something written about them. Nothing more than brief passing mention about them in news. I don't believe this person meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Extend: Statements based on her own words do not contribute to notability. Her own words on interview conducted by amateur internet podcast personnel Sam Chubb and BK Adrian are not a reliable source aside from confirming the probable fact that Woodruff said what she said. Sources from TSR(employer) is not an independent source, neither is a PDF published by her coworker Mike Selinker(co-worker). Her coverage in Seattle Times is only a column about a one day event. The current sources absolutely do not satisfies the WP:SIRS criteria and the reviews supplied that can be attributed don't appear to be independent professional reviews. They're not like Kirkus. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The Seattle Times "Catch him if you can — win $5,000" in the local column section	N	Y	Y	N	N	Woodruff's one time auxiliary role in Evan Ratcliff's hide and seek game
BK Adrian; and Sam Chubb	Y	N	N	N	N	Subject's own statements in podcast interview run by some non-established dudes off the internet.
Kidsworld.com	N	Y	?	Y	N	very brief review
Swan, Rick and Varney, Allen reviews published by TSR.	?	?	?	?	?	Two reviews, both published by TSR, to which Woodruff may have held professional connections.
Selinker, Mike	N	N	?	N	N	Woodruff appears in a name list written by her colleague at the time.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I agree with the nominator. The article is fluffy and seems to want to piece notability together from the smallest of claims, and secondary sourcing that proves anything at all is lacking. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have removed the unsourced material, and added two interviews as sources to establish the facts of her career and that she was the first female game designer at both White Wolf Publishing (1993) and Wizards of the Coast (1995).Guinness323 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Guinness323, I'm sorry, but nothing you added is in any way reliably sourced or acceptable. You're citing podcasts? No. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies:. I'm on the same position as you. Since they're recorded, it probably accurately reflects the subject said what she said, but I think it's it's a huge issue in WP:NPOV and letting it have influence on what contents to include, because the conversation is directed by some random guys Sam Chubb and BK Adrian from the internet who hosts their personal podcast and those two interview audios are certainly absolutely worthless for notability purpose. A subject and a friend could easily plant things out, plot conversation ahead of time to only talk about what they want to talk about and put emphasis on things the subject wants to talk a lot about. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added another secondary source, an article from the Seattle Times.Guinness323 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source is usable for fact verification such as that she was 40 in 2009. But note that it appears to be a column based on the closing commentary on the bottom and it's in the Local News section of the people talking about local matters. It sounds like this is about a one time event on August 17, 2009, so WP:BIO1E may apply. Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I agree the article is poorly written buts she’s written enough notable games that she should stay. Someone should sandbox it. Juju (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to WP:NAUTHOR reviews of works count toward notability ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). Recommend creating a section for reviews with appropriate sourcing. I see her books have separate articles with the reviews scattered around elsewhere except in her article where they probably should be located to establish her notability as an author. @Jujucabana and Guinness323: -- GreenC 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accordingly, I have added a number of independent reviews of works where she is either the sole author/designer or lead designer.Guinness323 (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tons of reviews here could be included. -- GreenC 14:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I see a button for "add review" in those pages and they appear to be those WRITTEN BY VISITORS. Those reviews are not appropriate to be included as sources per our user generated contents guidelines and I don't even see user reviews after a quick glance. "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This does not apply for just being contributing author to magazines. Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not looking at the right place. Archive.org is a library that has complete copies of books and magazines in its holdings (they have over 30 million larger than Google Books and you can check out the complete book for free). These books and magazines contain reviews of books published by Teeuwynn Woodruff. -- GreenC 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect with a comment like "Tons of reviews here" and when it is not "here" ? Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is there. You just have to open the books and search for her reviews. It was a comment/suggestion for anyone trying to Keep the article. I didn't vote, the search link is not on its own a justification for Keep. -- GreenC 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above comments, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some of the elements in the table above are inaccurate.
  • The Seattle Times is a significant, reliable, secondary, independent source. The "Local News" (which most large city newspaper have) is a section of the newspaper that covers local news, just like the sports section covers sports, the business section covers business, etc. Just because the article is about local news does not make it any less significant by appearing in the pages of a major newspaper.
  • Dragon is a significant reliable secondary source, and considered independent when the subject is not materials published by TSR.
    • In the case of the review by Rick Swan about Galitia Citybook, Woodruff wrote the book in 1994 for West End Games, which is not associated with TSR. She wrote it the year before she started working at WotC, and three years before WotC bought TSR. Therefore no conflict of interest or lack of independence.
    • In the case of the Varney article, that is not a review, it is a industry-related news article, and was added not for notability but as a fact-checking source.
  • Kidzworld.com is an independent, reliable, secondary website focussed on children and preteens.Guinness323 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH defines "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies" as trivial, but WP:GNG is sparsely populated with the definition of trivial. Given the italic comment on the bottom of that piece, I believe that is a column, or WP:NEWSBLOG rather than a regular news. I looked into it more and its looking like her role was an auxiliary role. Ok, so Evan Ratcliff was doing a hide-and-seek and Woodruff was point of contact person... but the main theme of these coverages was about Evan and his hide and seek. Woodruff was simply a auxiliary role. So I think this counts as trivial coverage about her. https://www.argn.com/2009/08/a_modern_day_lobby_lud_wireds_manhunt_for_evan_ratliff/
https://www.wired.com/2009/09/vanished-captured-recapping-the-hunt-for-evan-ratliff/
https://www.wired.com/2009/08/how-well-find-evan-ratliff/
Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the article that appeared in the Seattle Times, Nicole Brodeur was a regular bi-weekly columnist. That newspaper has the largest circulation in the state of Washington and in the Pacific Northwest region, and has received 11 Pulitzer Prizes (most recently in 2019). Clearly a column published in a large city newspaper is not considered "trivial" by its editors, but something of interest to its readers. While the first part of the article is about the event, the balance is about Woodruff and her role as a female game designer in a largely male-dominated industry, which is exactly why the article was used in this article.Guinness323 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Column is an opinion of the author writing the piece, so it's a primary source. A reliable primary source isn't excluded as a source, but they don't count towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, additional research can be done with Reading Moving Letters (2015) and Tabletop Game Design for Video Game Designers (2015). Right cite (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments https://books.google.com/books?id=_5DwCQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT156&vq=woodruff&dq=%22Tabletop%20Game%20Design%20for%20Video%20Game%20Designers%22&pg=PT156#v=onepage&q&f=false nothing really significant. https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=N-BKCgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Reading+Moving+Letters%22&q=woodruff#v=snippet&q=woodruff&f=false nothing significant. It confirms that she was one of the five people who created Betrayal at the House on the Hill Graywalls (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Guinness323 and their additional research and writing. Article seems to barely pass notability. To the extent it's on that borderline, there's no suitable redirect or merge target, and a stand-alone article seems like the best of all options. The article could stand to be cleaned up and re-organized but that's separate from AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2020 (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.