Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Adams (Game Developer)

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 13:51, January 7, 2009

David L. Adams (Game Developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete nn bio Mayalld (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO, could have just been prodded though. — neuro^(talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore me, failed miserably at searching. — neuro^(talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep David Adams is a game developer who has published one game, founder of 3 game companies, one of which is currently producing 2 major titles (Warhammer 40k Online, and Darksiders). Granted he's lesser known, but he is significant, IMO. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst people should know that Google hits are not a good way to measure notability a search (and another) reveal little correlation or evidence of notability. — neuro^(talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • this, this, and this however do yield significant results. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush! Deluxe his first title is a "top dog" on the underdogs. Trade Wars while never released generated lots of interest. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does seem to be more of a biography than an encylopaedia entry Astral highway (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, isn't biography part of an encyclopedia? --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Adams (businessman) is "encyclopedia" worthy, why not David L. Adams (Game Developer)? --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I get roughly 1500 hits that somehow correlate David Adams with Vigil Games, the studio he partly founded. There are five articles at Gamasutra alone. I'm sure there's enough info spread around those links to scrabble together an article. I think that qualifies as "significant coverage". SharkD (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I very rarely get inclusionist tendencies, but frankly, this nomination is ridiculously quick. The article was created by an inexperienced editor on 6 January at 21:57. At 21:59, the article's second edit, it has been nominated for deletion with a rationale of two abbreviations. Do we have no tolerance for stub articles any more? Articles rarely start out at a high quality. To me, this represents a shocking breakdown in assuming good faith (in a different sense than the usual one of slinging insults at each other), the article has not been given any time whatsoever to develop. I'd say don't demolish the house whilst its being built, but this is more akin to taking potshots at the builders as they arrive to lay the foundations. -- Sabre (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just started putting the article together, when it got marked for deletion ... should I continue it, or wait for the decision on if its going to be deleted before finishing it?--Thabin (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd continue editing. If you can improve the article by fleshing it out a bit more and adding a rough list of references, it helps strenthen its position in this AfD. SharkD's links should give some sources to help give some more meat on the bones. -- Sabre (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Seems to be notable for me, plus the original nominator should take a gander at WP:BITE. This article deserves a chance and after looking at the various links posted here I can see there should be enough referable information to put together a short but solid article. In it's current state its very weak but I'd say give it a week to develop and you'll have something that should fail an AfD. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Give the article a chance. The sources are there; let the author improve it. MuZemike (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Warhammer 40K Online gets off the ground, it has the potential to be a major game worldwide (based on the interest generated by Warhammer Online). Developers of such games often have detailed WP articles. Deleting this stub before it has a chance to get off the ground would seem at best premature. Basie (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"IF" we work on what is, not on what might be Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping up nicely. I'm switching to a keep nomination on this new evidenceAstral highway (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (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.