Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Care Boss

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 move. to Draft:Emily Care Boss. Absouletly none of the keep rationales gave a reason on why she meets WP:GNG, and a few of the keep commentators, along with a delete voter agreed that it should be moved until she meets WP:GNG in the future. Secret ^account 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Care Boss

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

This is the oldest unreviewed article on the New pages feed. I am not sure that the subject meets WP:BASIC. I may be wrong – if I am, please let me know and I will withdraw my nomination. Karlhard (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how the subject would pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move back to Draft:Emily Care Boss; I could do some more work on it, and it may have been moved back into mainspace prematurely. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection whatsoever to the article being moved back to draft space. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move back to Draft:Emily Care Boss Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the original creator of this article from some time ago, and did not understand the deletion process when it was originally removed or would have spoke up at that time.) Boss is one of the most notable designers and theoreticians on the Indie RPG game scene. She fits notability guidelines due to awards (Fastaval) and international GoH requests (Fastaval, Ropecon) and an extensive list of games. Comparative to other designers on the scene whose pages are not and never have been in challenge for deletion (e.g. Jared Sorenson, Clinton R. Nixon or Vincent Baker) her notability equates or exceeds and her wiki bio article are comparative. I will insert citations later today that brings it in line with the way that Baker's citations are documented. Spaceanddeath (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be most notable with references provided. Don't know how to call this – but this is not as notable as you speak so. Karlhard (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karlhard, I have updated and added some references. The comment above was to illustrate the strength of her article in terms of other articles on WP for comparable figures. Unless we are saying that no-one in the Indie Games community fits WP:BASIC. Is that your assertion? Spaceanddeath (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's irrelevant whether others in the same industry have more or less coverage and so are "more or less" notable. We call that an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Notability generally isn't judged in comparison to other similar subjects because it's possible for two people to have done the same thing but to have been the subject of different levels of coverage. Nobody is suggesting that "no-one in the Indie Games community" and that's a bit of a straw-man argument. Subjects are judged on their own merits. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not sure that being a "special guest" at a conference adds much by way of notability; I'm not sure we could consider the program note to be "significant coverage". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi St★lwart Sorry, I didn't mean it to be a strawman, but was honestly trying to understand User:Karlhard's comments and thought that might be what he meant. This is my first article defense on WP so please bear with me. I read WP:OTHERSTUFF and now understand what you mean, I'll try to keep all the discourse rules in mind. I noticed in WP:OTHERSTUFF the clause about WP:BIAS which I think may be important in this case. I originally initiated this article after noticing that there was really big gender gap for indie game designer articles (as far as I can see, 100% male). I think there is there a case to be made that the deletion of this article (which is, I think, of equal merit to the other articles I listed) would further the bias regarding this topic.

In the meantime, I am still working to improve the article. Could I have a clarification on the conference honour: I did not include things I considered might be "special guest" status in a local conference. I only included the two I could find that seemed elevated - International invitations based on the body of work that Boss had created. Does that make a difference in this case?Spaceanddeath (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anything you can do to help would be great. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boss fits the Notability requirements under Creative Professionals, as she "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." and "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." In addition, deleting this article would extend the gender bias of articles in this category. Smokebomb (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably just about meets the notability guidelines and in borderline cases like this it's best to keep unless the subject has expressed a desire for deletion, which isn't the case here. --Rotten regard 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with WP:CREATIVE is that it functions as a double-edged sword - we might not have sources to substantiate WP:GNG but we still need reliable sources that verify the subject is regarded as important or has been widely cited. Two of those and we'd likely be at WP:GNG a lot of the time anyway. Conference guest lists won't cut it in that regard. If she's known for originating a significant new concept, we still need sources verifying that is the case. It's important to counter bias, but not at the expense of verifiable, encyclopaedic content. I'm happy to accept she passes both 1 and 2 of WP:CREATIVE but I still think we need a source and I don't we have one in the current citations list. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:49, 30 October 2014 (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.