Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CA Suleiman

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CA Suleiman

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

Only sources are primary (interviews), so it doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Non-notable designer. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Washington Post article now lends notability, otherwise move to Drafts so it can be worked on further. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: BOZ (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As sole author of "Cairo by Night" and co-author of "City of the Damned", Suleiman is notable per WP:AUTHOR, point 3, regardless of the current state of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO is merely a guideline of possible things that would confer notability, not a way to determine it. Just because someone wrote a book doesn't mean they are notable, as shown by WP:INHERIT. If you could list some (reliable, secondary) sources that would probably support the claim of independent notability more._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People much wiser than I in the ways of WP insist that INHERIT is intended to prevent notabilty from transferring from authors to works, but not from works to authors, which might help you make sense of WP:AUTHOR. For a robust argument to this effect (taking me to task), see this <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)&curid=1447059&diff=811645959&oldid=811642601>. Also, it is not my job to find the reviews and secondary references for City of the Damned; you can find them yourself without effort. Considering that you have previously failed to WP:AGF and have accused me, against the evidence, of confusing primary and secondary sources when I did provide the latter, I don't owe you anything. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, an artist's notability is most certainly separate from that of their work. The GNG is called "general" for a reason, it's not something that can be bypassed with clever interpretations of notability policy. If that is really the case then it would open up plenty of new cans of worms, like making game studios notable for making notable games, and then making the employees of that studio also notable for being part of the studio that made the notable game. It's simply unsustainable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That slippery slope argument, however, is quite unnecessary and irrelevant. Here we are only discussing the relationship between a (print) author and (reviewed, notable) books. Newimpartial (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a book is different than a game, or any other form of media, for the purposes of comparison. There are plenty of books with massive numbers of authors, like textbooks that are widely distributed. Saying "woah! this is off-limits to anything but print media!" is arbitrary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policy described in AUTHOR says that if an artist's work is notable then that artist is notable. You are then moving to the limit cases when a "massive number" of people are responsible for a work. Whatever the merits of those cases, they are not relevant here, where the game author/designer in question is sole author or one of two co-authors for two notable works. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although Boz's point about the Washington Post article is correct. However, it's the only in-depth independent source that I can find on the author. Lot's of trivial mentions. Also concerning is the Wapo article was written 8 years ago, and nothing since? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Additional sources I've found with a quick correction to the apostrophes and spacing include [1], but also at least three separate sites noting that this particular author was recently banned from an industry convention based on harassment allegations. I will not link any of them here, as they are not high enough quality RS for a BLP issue, but you can find them through the basic web search, immediately above this comment. None of these sources appear to be in the article or addressed above in this AfD, which means that if the GNG was marginal before, it's certainly met now. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yeah, he was notable before the the harassment allegations. The Washington Post article is of course the best source, but the Nightmare one looks okay. And Keith Baker does certainly count as expert in the field, so his blog is probably a weak RS. I'd have called him borderline other than that WP article. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (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.