Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Abranson

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. The RSN discussion notwithstanding, consensus here is that the sources are sufficiently reliable to establish the subject's notability. So Why 19:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Abranson

[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)

Part of the Cubicle 7 WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Article has zero WP:RS. (Note that the book "Designers & Dragons" is of questionable RS: it is supposedly an historical text but is (a) published by a novelty t-shirt and card game company [1], (b) the author has no credentials as an historian.) A BEFORE search on Google News, newspapers.com, Google Books, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and JSTOR returns zero ("0") results for the name "Angus Abranson" in RS. Chetsford (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the rationale for deletion is full of errors. The nom does not appear to understand that the publishers of Designers & Dragons are actual publishers exercising editorial oversight; he also does not recognize the established role of non-academic professionals in various fields, including this one, in writing RS monographs about their fields of expertise. He also, hilariously, has no idea what a tabletop roleplaying game is, in spite of nominating ten of them for deletion. I propose that his first game be the relaunched OSR Tunnels & Trolls. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the novelty t-shirt and card game company "Evil Hat" [2] is exercising editorial oversight over its book Designers & Dragons. My position is that a BLP source to a single (i.e. 1) RS - particularly when that RS is an historical text published by a novelty t-shirt company - does not meet the significant coverage requirements of GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Novelty t-shirt company"? The Nom clearly has no idea what these book and games are, nor has the background knowledge on the publishers in thies field and what criterea have been used for the past 10 years here to estblish notability. The nom is clearly out of his depth and this needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating any of their claims. Web Warlock (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Lady Gaga sells T-shirts she doesn't stop being an artist, man. (And Beating the Story doesn't stop being a book of literary criticism because it's published by a game company.) You really don't understand what Evil Hat does. But 10/10 for trolling! Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial's arguments on the Dominic McDowall-Thomas which I feel apply here as well. 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) 17:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Webwarlock. BOZ (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Speedy Keep The nom's reasoning for AFD'ing this page are largely invalid based on a clear lack of understanding of what the RPG industry is. Web Warlock (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Gen Con Industry Insider Guest for 2013 should be plenty to establish notability. Web Warlock (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per source above and [3]. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for descriptive purposes for other editors !voting here, your link above is to "ennie-awards.com". Chetsford (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ENnies are the Premier award for the RPG industry, akin to the People's Choice Awards. The fact that you don't know this is reason enough for you not to be tagging articles for Deletion in this area. Web Warlock (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was for descriptive purposes for other editors !voting here, your link above is to "ennie-awards.com". It's purely a convenience note for editors who don't want to click on the link. That aside, I don't think one could really equivocate the "ENnie Awards" to the People's Choice Awards. A better equivalent would be a trade group trophy of similar acclaim, like the Commercial Real Estate Awards of Excellence or the Master Plumber Association Awards. Comparing the "ENnie Awards", which are InkJet certificates passed out on the floor of a trade show at a rental hall in Indianapolis and are covered in outlets like "The Dragon" and "rpg.net", to a 40 year-old awards show with a live audience of 7,000 that's nationally broadcast on network TV to millions of people and is covered by hundreds of major daily newspapers, is probably not an entirely realistic comparison, right? Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is the premier award in the field. And the "trade show" is 60,000 people, which is I think, fairly large as trade shows go. So no, it's not the people's choice awards, but it is fair to say they are "akin" in that it is the same idea (voted awards). Probably the Nebula awards would be similar in many ways (smaller trade show, more prestige, bigger market, nicer awards) Hobit (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it has already been established through multiple precedents at Wikipedia that an ENnie AWard winning person, company or game is a good indication of notability. Your condescending tone above does nothing but expose your own ignorance of these topics. Web Warlock (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think 60K is on the modest, albeit very respectable, size. The Miami Boat Show has more than 100,000 people attend [4], and Concrete World Expo and the Home and Housewares Show both also have 60K+ [5] and I would certainly be surprised if we passed a BLP through on the basis of the individual once speaking at Concrete World Expo. The two times I was at Gencon it seemed like a respectable show and certainly a mid/mid-major event for central Indiana. I would probably not place the "ENnie Awards" on the same level of the Nebula Awards - the recipients of which regularly produce New York Times bestselling books. All that said, however, I think the more modest description of premier award in the field versus the previously offered description of it being like the People's Choice Awards is reasonable and I appreciate you providing this clarification and edification. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, Chets, is this Gencon claim a tacit admission that your repeated "puzzle game" and "stratego" opportunities were deliberate trolling all along? The opportunity for vigorous trolling has not yet been added to the Deletion criteria, you civil contributor, you. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Claims that there are no RS are simply not credible. Attacking "Designers & Dragons" based on it being published by a "novelty T-shirt company" is at best a misrepresentation aimed at garnering sympathy from less discerning editors (Evil Hat may sell T-shirts, but they are primarily a book publisher). This line of reasoning strikes me as being dangerously close to coatracking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's lack of knowledge of the subject and borderline subscription to the IDONTLIKEIT school of AfDing is made clear by their unawareness of the reliability of Designers and Dragons, obsession with characterising its publishers as a "novelty t-shirt company", and comment about Abranson not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which as anyone who could be bothered to do their homework would be aware, only includes dead people, and non-inclusion in which even of dead people does not mean they are not notable in any case given how selective it is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/ caveat Fails GNG, ANYBIO. The acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be, per the discussion at RSN seems to be questionable at best. Many of the other Keep arguments seem to me to be against the nominator/nomination rather than addressing how this person may or may not pass notability.
Of the sources in the article: Chronicle City appoints “Grim” James Desborough is essentially an interview and does not count towards notability; The GenCon "Alumni list" is of no use for notability; Dare you face the Dragon's Den? is not RS; The NewsCentral link [6] is dead; The Angus Abranson interview: A look inside Chronicle City is, again, an interview; and winning an ENnie is insufficient for ANYBIO#1. I have not had time to do a good BEFORE but as the article stands it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I will spend some time searching for sources but, for now, I will presume if there were any easily findable material it would have been presented. Jbh ^Talk 14:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note to the closer that, while the discussion at the RSN is not yet closed, there is strong support there for Designers & Dragons as a RS including for biographical articles. In addition, as I have pointed out elsewhere, geeknative meets the requirements for reliable self-published source, as the author "is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:RS/SPS). Also, per WP:CREATIVE, the subject's guest of honor roles demonstrste that "The person is regarded as an important figure ... by peers or successors."(#1) Newimpartial (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be, per the discussion at RSN seems to be questionable at best." No, that's not what it seems to be saying at all thus far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... after your comment at RSN, just going by the table, there are 7 Yes, 7 No and 1 Maybe. I suppose there is some arguable semantic difference between Maybe and questionable but applying it to my statement above would be more of an exercise in pedantry than elucidation. Jbh ^Talk 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a BLP, and Jbhunley has correctly tallied the current !votes for BLPs in the RSN query, the initial comment that "the acceptability of Designers & Dragons seems to be questionable at best" does not specify the context of BLPs, and is therefore inadvertently misleading. The overall !votes for "game and game company" sourcing from Designers & Dragons is nine yes and four no, with two maybe. That survey would not be accurately read as "questionable at best" under any circumstances. Of course what actually matters is the policy-based arguments, but the interpretation of those is unlikely to be resolved soon. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "more of an exercise in pedantry than elucidation." Jbh ^Talk 16:31, 21 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.