Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas

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. Looks like everyone got fed up of the debate and wandered off elsewhere. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McDowall-Thomas

Dominic McDowall-Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

None of this article's references are to a WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of either fleeting mentions or inclusion on small hobby game websites or blogs, none of which are themselves RS. This appears to be part of an expansive WP:WALLEDGARDEN that also includes entries for his company Cubicle 7, etc. Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge to Cubicle 7 and redirect Designers and Dragons is most certainly a reliable source, and the subject is also in receipt of multiple notable awards. If you can't do a competent BEFORE in a certain domain, don't file for deletion in it, is my motto... Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (rationale for changed !vote) To be honest, I've never really liked this article, and I've given it a lot of thought over the last week. While I think it sneaks by WP:GNG on Designers & Dragons and the industry insider badge, I'm not 100% convinced that the subject's creative contribution is entirely up to my own personal criteria: somewhat more akin to a record producer than a musician, maybe, and so the standard for a relevant and interesting article is higher. I don't see anything important about the subject that wouldn't fit just as well under Cubicle 7, and obviously no rule says that everyone who meets NBIO should have their own article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Designers and Dragons is most certainly a reliable source I value your opinion but, based on a combination of publisher and author, I don't share it. Further, a single source does not establish GNG. the subject is also in receipt of multiple notable awards I'm not sure the "Silver EEnie Roleplaying Gamer Trophy" is what WP:NAUTHOR has in mind under inherent notability via notable awards. I think the idea is more along the lines of the Man Booker Prize, the Pulitzer, the Caldecott Medal, etc. If you can't do a competent BEFORE in a certain domain, don't file for deletion in it, is my motto... In general, in AfD, we escalate up to calling each other incompetent, rather than coming out of the gate guns blazing. Just a friendly FYI. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about you earn your competence spurs in this area, Chetsford. Designers & Dragons is a four-volune work that has gone through two editions, written by a professional in the field (who is entirely independent of Cubicle 7) and published completely independently of Cubicle 7. It is therefore an independent, reliable source for this and the other Cubicle 7- related articles and YOUDONTLIKEIT is not any kind of mark against its reliability. CIR, man. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A work's page length or volume count is of no relevance in establishing whether it is RS. The Designers & Dragons game book is supposedly an historical-biographical source. To properly evaluate it we look at the publisher's reliability as a gatekeeper in the field of historical publishing, the author's credentials as an historian, and whether the source is - itself - referenced in unambiguously RS. To that extent:

• Is the publisher a competent gatekeeper of historical or biographical works?: The publisher is a small novelty t-shirt manufacturer and card game company that has no physical address and this appears to be their only non-fiction publication. [1]
• Is the author a credible historian?: The author, Shannon Appelcline, has undertaken no scholarly publishing indexed by Google Scholar, makes no claims to advanced degrees in the field of history (or any field, it seems) [2], makes no claims to membership in any learned society, and - from Google News - has never been quoted as a source on this subject in any RS.
• Is the work generally accepted as reliable by other RS?: A check through Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR and I'm unable to turn up any RS that itself sources the Designers & Dragons puzzle book.

Therefore, I can affirmatively state that the Designers & Dragons puzzle book is definitely non-RS in any sense, least of all to the high standards demanded by WP:BLP.

This, of course, is aside from the fact that - even if it were RS (which it is not) - a single mention of someone in a single source is insufficient to establish GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Designers & Dragons a reliable source?

Seriously, Chetsford, are you unable to work Google Scholar or Google Books? I see 22 references to the first volume of Designers & Dragons second edition, in Google scholar alone, along with additional citations of the first (Mongoose) Edition. https://gfy23kpax02.storage.googleapis.com/MTYxMzE3MDg0WA==02.pdf

Designers & Dragons is also cited in the following books, among others:

Peterson (2012) Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People and Fantastic Adventures, from Chess to Role-playing Games (referencing the first edition)

Witwer (2015) Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons

Byers & Coroso (2016) The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs (2016)

Desterding & Zagal (2018) Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations (published by ducking Routledge, the first text in its field)

Considering how recently Designers & Dragons was published and how little scholarly publication has yet been done on RPGs, this is certainly a significant enough uptake to establish its reliability in the subject area.

Your Cubicle 7 AfDs remind me of the AfD of Emily Care Boss by people who just DONTLIKEIT or don't get it. Such ignorant gestures are frankly an embarassment to the encyclopedia.Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My tone was inappropriate for this venue and I have redacted my comments as a gesture of apology. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, by referring to Designers & Dragons as a "game book" or a "puzzle book" you are simply discrediting yourself. It is neither of these things. It is a respected historical source for the Role-playing industry, well reviewed in other publications, researched by an expert with decades of professional writing experience. If you can't find the works that cite it, that is a CIR issue for you and nothing else. Also the discussion of Cubicle 7 and its publications throughout Designers & Dragons is much more than "a single mention". Please stop writing about things you can't characterize accurately. Newimpartial (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In ref to your comment:

• I see 22 references to the first volume of Designers & Dragons I, too, saw that. I stand by what I said: "I'm unable to turn up any RS" (emphasis added). This, of course, is aside from the fact that Dominic McDowall-Thomas will need more than simply being acknowledged in Designers & Dragons to pass GNG or ANYBIO. He needs significant coverage in a variety of RS. Ergo, even if Designers & Dragons was RS (it isn't) Dominic McDowall-Thomas still fails GNG / ANYBIO for lack of reference in any other RS.

No, by NAUTHOR as long as the article subject has produced notable works and sufficient sources exist to create an encyclopedia entry (which we clearly have in this case), the article passes WP:N. (Not that there aren't other RS, just that they aren't needed for Notability.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• that is a CIR issue for you CIR issues are addressed at WP:ANI, not AFD.
• the discussion of Cubicle 7 and its publications throughout Designers & Dragons is much more than "a single mention" This is not an AFD on Cubicle 7. This is an AFD on Dominic McDowall-Thomas.

• It is frankly an embarassment to the encyclopedia. So far you've thrice indicated I'm incompetent, you've called my mere presence on WP an "embarassment" [sic], and you've indicated my nominating this at AFD is an "ignorant gesture". If you believe I'm an incompetent and ignorant embarrassment, you'll need to request I be community banned at WP:ANI. If it's just hyperbole, you'll need to tone it down just a bit.

Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say I have strong feelings about AfD nominators who can't, or won't, carry out a competent BEFORE. Certainly your sloppy treatment of the sources citing Designers & Dragons - which included the new standard Routledge text in the field - was pretty scandalous. But I am saying that these actions are "ignorant" and "an embarrassment", not you personally. And I never bring anyone to ANI for a "first offense" even if they do something actionable; also, not all levels of CIR are actionable in my view; some just need to be called out. Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"not all levels of CIR are actionable in my view; some just need to be called out" Again, AFD is not a place for "call outs". You need to use this space to discuss the AFD, not to discuss your opinion of other editors. Repeatedly declaring another editor incompetent in an AFD while simultaneously saying no "actionable" concerns exist is essentially an acknowledgment that this is just a drive-by personal attack. If you have concerns please take them to ANI. If you don't want to take them to ANI then you either need to ruminate on them in a non-expressive format or post them to your Sandbox, Userpage, or Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are doing to refer to tabletop role-playing games as "puzzle games" or "board games" - which declares that you have no idea what you are nominating - and then deny the reliability of the major historical source for the field - even though you know it has been cited in scholarly articles and a Routledge text - then I am going to point out that CIR. The only alternative would be to assume bad faith, which I am reluctant to do. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, this AFD is not a place to raise questions about the competence of individual editors. In fact, our WP:CIR policy implicitly precludes accusing other editors of CIR outside of an incident forum or on an individual editor's Talk page. Again, WP:ANI is the forum you need to use (or my Talk page). Thank you for your future help in keeping this forum topical and civil. Chetsford (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says that "generally" the term incompetent doesn't help; it a!so says that things should not be brought to ANI. But you are right; this is a talk page topic. I will refrain from commenting further on competence issues here. Peace out. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I proposed to Chetsford that we remove the bickering above as a NOTFORUM violation, but he did not agree. Sorry, readers! Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial - please unstrike my comments. I can't do so myself without violating 3RR. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Newimpartial and I'm sure the same arguments apply to Angus Abranson as well. I will try go to through my available sources for the multitude of related AFDs later today, but that has certainly created a lot of work for me. If a Keep result becomes impossible here, then I request this be sent to Draft so that it can be worked on further. BOZ (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If Keep or Draft are not reasonable options, then I see three people below suggesting Merging to Cubicle 7, and in my mind a selective merge would be better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep I think we have a disagreement on what counts as a reliable source. I've not seen a clear justification (other than not liking the publisher?) why Designers & Dragon isn't reliable. Also recognized in the field as an industry insider at GenCon. At the least this is a merge to Cubical 7, so really not a topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit - for purposes of forward momentum I'd be happy, potentially, to simply concede Designers & Dragons is RS. If I did would your position be that a WP:BLP can be sustained by a single (i.e. 1) RS? I know of no other recent BLP here that has passed with only one RS, other than those which have inherent notability and we don't have an inherent notability category for business executives or game designers. To the other point, I question whether once having been issued a speaker pass at a trade show at a rental hall in Indiana meets the spirit of our policies on GNG (whether said trade show is GENCON, the National Automobile Dealers Association Show, or Concrete World Expo, all of which are of similar size). Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my issue is that you know your way around here well enough that you had to have known that there was a clear merge option here. But instead you proposed deletion. I do get the sense you are rapidly educating yourself about the subject matter you nominated, which is great, if a bit late. But ignoring that, you are right, one independent RS isn't enough for a BLP to be kept in general (there are other reliable sources in the article BTW, but they aren't independent and so don't count toward WP:N). There are a number of other independent reliable sources (https://thegaminggang.com/tag/dominic-mcdowall-thomas/ where TGG has editorial control for example) but given that you are struggling to accept the book in question as a RS, I really don't think we are going to get anywhere with you accepting a small company that focuses on gaming as a reliable source. So we'll just have to see what others think. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7, Designers & Dragons is borderline reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP (non-academic publisher, cited only in other borderline sources); since we hold WP:BLPSOURCES to a high standard, I'd lean towards not counting it in this context, so we'd need another few solid RS.

I'm not sure how much editorial oversight TGG has (apparently some, but mostly by Jeff McAleer, who is also the author of a lot of the pieces being cited) and in any case the content Hobit linked consists of three interviews (not WP:INDEPENDENT) and a game review by McAleer that gives no biographical information about McDowall-Thomas.

Other than these, Google/News/Scholar/Books searches find only interviews, obviously unreliable sources (fora, blogs, etc), and his LinkedIn. The latter mentions that he won the 2012 Origins Award for Best RPG Supplement; this could count towards WP:ANYBIO if we consider it a well-known and significant award, but given that this criterion is supposed to be at the same level as having been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on their field, by historians, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. FourViolas (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FourViolas, please stop spreading disinformation. SCHOLARSHIP is not required for a source to be reliable and independent for purposes of WP:N, so please don't pretend that only academic sources count. The fact that Designers & Dragons is repeatedly cited with approval in actual academic texts on RPGs, including the new one from Routledge, really ought to give you pause in this line of argument, and it would behoove you to look at the last 10 years of RPG AfDs before your toes reach your esophagus. Or are Routledge publications borderline sources to you now?

Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain, you might as well stop contributing now and save all of is a lot of wasted energy. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"FourViolas, please stop spreading disinformation." It is important we, individually, put forth an effort not to make incendiary claims about other editors and to AGF. "it would behoove you to look at the last 10 years of RPG AfDs" This is not a requirement of AfD !voting. "Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain" There is no "RPG domain". WP standards are WP standards. There are no special criteria for games; they have to meet the same evidentiary requirements as any commercial product - a car, a refrigerator brand, breakfast cereal, anything. "you might as well stop contributing now" FourViolas has an impressive 91% match rate at AfD; her contributions and expertise are valued and welcome. Chetsford (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is certainly something to be said against writing AfD comments while annoyed, and if FourViolas (who really ought to share since I only have one) took anything personally I'm sure they will let me know. The fact is that nobody who doesn't know what an Origins Award is, or who does but holds the fringe view that it doesn't count for notability, should be contributing to AfDs for RPGs, any more than should trolls or people who describe RPGs as "puzzle games" or "like Stratego".

And your argument that games are the same as other commercial products is simply wrong per WP policy. These particular games are creative works, namely books in this specific case, and NAUTHOR/NCREATIVE applies in this case as it would not if we were discussing refrigerators or breakfast cereals.

My comment about "spreading disinformation" was specific to the claim that SCHOLARSHIP was necessary for reliable sourcing of articles and for Notability. That just isn't true - it is never true - and in this particular case amounts to FUD engineered by an editor whose intention appears to have been to sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive nominations while also displaying to the world that he does not know what a WP:WALLEDGARDEN or a FANZINE is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sources don't have to be scholarship to be reliable, but sources purporting to be historical scholarship—as Designers does—had better be the reliable kind to count for notability, and SCHOLARSHIP is the guideline for determining that. Per my comments at the Cubicle 7 AfD, the Routledge collection citing Designers is probably just enough to meet that standard, but especially since BLPs have strict sourcing requirements we need another solid RS or two to be able to write an acceptable article, and I'm really not seeing any.

As for the Origins Awards, I interpret ANYBIO's well-known and significant standard as "familiar to the general public" rather than "familiar to people who closely follow the subfield being recognized", because the latter seems to make the criterion almost meaningless: if I win Best Poster Presentation at an international bryophyte reproductive physiology conference, any bryophyte reproductive physiologist will understand and appreciate this, but I'm not automatically eligible for a WP article. FourViolas (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said elsewhere, SCHOLARSHIP is intended to establish a hierarchy of preferred sources, not to create a standard for Notability higher than that in the GNG. And NBIO does not at all create a higher sourcing standard (as NCORP does); it specifies that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (WP:BASIC). This is exactly the case we have here: one really clearly significant source, a number of smaller ones (and interviews that don't count for WP:N, a consensus determination I respect though I do not agree with its logic), along with industry awards and honors that demonstrate, per WP:CREATIVE, the the subject has "won significant critical attention" and "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". This really is a slam dunk CREATIVE pass.

Also, what could I give you for your least favorite Viola? I could really use a travel model ;). Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think BASIC allows us to combined multiple reliable sources with less-than-significant coverage to make one notability-conferring source, not to combine multiple less-than-reliable sources with significant coverage, and the latter is what I'm seeing here. I would agree that the strongest case for notability comes from CREATIVE's regarded as an important figure [...] by peers standard, but that too has to be attested in a BLPRS. I can't find evidence that he (and some number of other people?) won an Origins Award for Best RPG Supplement (the winners pages aren't archived), and even if I could I'm not sure it would qualify; there are a half-dozen awarded annually, and he hasn't been named to the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design's Hall of Fame. Did you hear about the violist who left his instrument in plain view in his car? When he got back, somebody had smashed the windshield and thrown in two more violas. FourViolas (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first hit on a Google search for him shows that a couple of books he worked on were nominated for Origins awards this year[3] and one of them won.[4] I haven't looked deeper than that, yet. BOZ (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is listed as lead designer on Adventures in Middle-earth, which win this year's Origins Award for Best RPG (source here: [5] ). I don't think there can be any real doubt about this one, per CREATIVE. Newimpartial (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I can't see anything here that gives him notability independent of Cubicle 7 right now. I certainly don't see him as a slam dunk creative pass even in the field of tabletop RPGs. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge D&D may be RS for what it contains, but it is a primary source that cannot be used to demonstrate notability of its staff.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McDowall-Thomas didn't do any writing for Designers & Dragons, or Dungeons & Dragons for that matter, unless you mean something else? BOZ (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:. As BOZ notes, I'm not seeing how this comment makes any sense. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I miread some of the comments above about D&D. Still not sure about the level of sourcing, too much is primary.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge to Cubicle 7 for sake of helping consensus. D&D is not, in my opinion, a reliable source for BLP and the rest of the sources, Cubicle7's web site and other SPS. See permalink for RSN discussion on D&D as of this time. Jbh ^Talk 16:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC) last edited 03:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - co-founded the second incarnation of a single company that is just barely notable itself, and doesn't have much media coverage. Anyone else notice that the first two sentences say he's known for two different unrelated things? Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:13, 23 August 2018 (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.