Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design

Was nominated for speedy. -- Scott e^iπ 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable technology book. The programming/game design bookshelves at Barnes and Noble take up a whole friggen wall; there's no reason to start listing every one of them here. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Keep, while I certainly agree that not every book should have an article, that doesn't mean that some of the more major books cannot have their own article. Author is a respected figure in the VG industry. Note: I started this article. Jacoplane 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What does this book have that the five hundred other books published on the subject in the past three years don't? --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
    • I guess I should point you to some of the quotes this book received from industry people. They're more qualified than me to discuss this. Jacoplane 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Those are just sound-bites used to advertise the book. Perhaps if you could point to some actual reviews... --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
        • Reviews: Gamasutra, Amazon check the first review, it's from Scott Miller. Jacoplane 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides, if you look at Category:Non-fiction book stubs, there are hundreds of books on politics listed there that seem less notable than this book. Is something more relevant because it's politics? Or should all those entries be deleted too? Jacoplane 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • They probably should be deleted, but then again, I'm a deletionist. =P --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Keep - a quick google test returns 15,200 results, all related to the book. Notable enough for an article. LordViD 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Google just shows popularity, not neccessarily notablility. Perhaps I should have said, "no claim to notability." --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
• Delete in its current form, possible Keep if expanded. I agree with Jacoplane that it meets verifiability, but while its authors may be notable and the book may be notable in the industry there is currently no explanation for why it is notable in the article itself. --Syrthiss 21:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would be more than willing to flesh this article out some more, which I was planning to do anyway. However, I'm going to wait and see how this VfD turns out before putting any more work into it. Jacoplane 18:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Which is actually something I would like to say some more about. Just 3 minutes after I had posted the initial stub the article was tagged for speedy deletion. I think if you look at my history it's clear I tend to make reasonable contributions, so perhaps more time should have been granted for me to improve the article. Jacoplane 19:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • True. Perhaps you should mention that to User:^demon (who only has perhaps 20 edits to his credit). I certainly wasn't making any assertions one way or the other. --Syrthiss 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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.