Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Roelofs

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Roelofs

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

I can't find significant third-party sources about this person - there's nothing currently in the article, and everything else I found was video game credits and a single short interview on a gaming fansite. The usual way of dealing with non-notable game designers appears to be to redirect them to the company article, but his current company does not have one. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I'm still editing it and haven't finished constructing the page. I'm also in a hissing fit with someone else regarding the use of a photograph of him in the Wikipedia page.

Also, the fact that you consider him a "Non-Notable" game designer is something I find very insulting. As a co-creator of Shadowgate along with David Marsh (whose page is currently under submission via the Page Building Wizard), he has several credits to his name worth mentioning, and I went to a lot of trouble doing the research to verify the accuracy of this information.

On top of that, why does 3rd Party information matter in this situation? The fact of the matter is that his company, Zojoi, is starting to make some headlines and deserves to have a Wikipedia page about it, about the creators, and I'm busy working on making them. I'm a big fan of the ICOM Simulations games, and they are making a come back already. If you'd be patient and let me get a chance to finish contributing and editing, you'd see that the page has content worth mentioning here on Wikipedia.

As it stands, ALL the information regarding ICOM Simulations and the people behind it are inaccurate. I intend to rectify that and set the record straight as to who was really responsible for the various IPs that once belonged to ICOM Simulations. This page is one of them.

So please do not delete as this page is not finished yet.

OtakuMan (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:V and WP:N about the minimum standards we expect for any article, and more importantly WP:BLP for bios of living persons. Just because they've developed a notable game doesn't make them notable. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this information is VERY hard to find as I have enough trouble as it is trying to make sure I know the right syntax in order to properly format information on pages. Anyway, if their own website can't be used as a verifiable Third Party Source, then what can? For the Gameography, I tried to include links to videos that contain the credits of Karl Roelofs' games to add additional verification.

For notability, I find it difficult to quantify or measure a person's notability. In addition, I'm not finished editing Karl Roelofs' Wikipedia entry and have even sent him an e-mail to see if I can the right license submitted to Wikipedia granting permission to use his photograph. Just because someone is "Unknown" doesn't mean that their notability is in any way lesser because of it. Like I said, I have done quite a bit of extensive research, dug up articles, and am working quite hard to try and make sure that people know who these developers are. And as I previously said, there is a lot of misinformation regarding who did what in certain games that I hope to fix.

Would GameFAQS be considered a good source for notability and verification? And also, thank you for directing me to the BLP section. I'll be sure to read it, follow the guidelines, and make edits as necessary. OtakuMan (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just listing in game credits does not make for an encyclopedic article so Gamefaqs does not work. You need content from third-party sources that discusses the importance of the developer on the industry, etc. Just because they made one popular significant doesn't impart notability. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's own website couldn't be considered a third party source by the very definition of the term "third party"... Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently fails the WP:GNG. Article creator seems to have given up on improving it. Entirely sourced by WP:YOUTUBE videos that feature gameplay/credits of the game's he's developed, and a Linked In profile. (aka 1st party sources.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. No reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. But I'd encourage the article's creator to stick around and learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Maybe they'll find a way to improve the article, or they can be encouraged to improve other articles in ways that are compatible with our policies. Vcessayist (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2012 (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.