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 delete. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dratwa[edit]

Jim Dratwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article is almost entirely sourced to primary sources, either the subject himself, or institutions that he works for or with. There are almost no independent secondary sources tht discuss the subject. The WP:GNG is not met, nor is WP:NACADEMIC; there is no indication that the subject's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. A few decent cites on GS, but not enough yet. Reads like a vanity page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. I'm seeing signs that may point to WP:UPE in the page history. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Expanding on my deletion rational: With a top cited work having about 100 citations (and many coauthors) on Google Scholar, he is far short of WP:NPROF C1, and there is no sign of any of the other NPROF criteria. The sources in the article appear to all be primary, and I did not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, let alone multiple such. So no WP:BASIC. Others below have advanced a possible WP:NCREATIVE case for his work as a game designer, but this would generally require multiple reviews of multiple games. I found only one review of a game that appears to be a possibly-reliable source. I do not see an WP:NCREATIVE case. I will change my !vote if I see a solid case for notability, but I do not see it so far. (And the article would then need to be completely rewritten to WP:DUEly focus on the subject's notable work.) I am concerned by the level of interest in this AfD by several not-quite-SPAs, including an attempt to create the illusion that a consensus has been reached or that WP:HEY applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not to be disregarded: subject is also a game author, a boardgame designer. Game authors rarely do 'only that'. Now even if on the other fronts the notability might be WP:Too soon, as a Board_game_designer the notability is right up there. The page should not be deleted. Please WP:EDITATAFD and add in the set of games this author designed (see Bill Dixon (game designer) for an example). Uliberty (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Secondary sources are there. I created the page initially and it has since been substantially improved by others. The process is ongoing, there is no need to preclude it. Sam Markanda (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which secondary sources provide significant coverage of the subject? Vexations (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The secondary sources are under References. Where there have been calls for specifying the page numbers, they were searched for and found and added. Where some had called for [citation needed], the citations have been sought and added. Also for the precise video timings. Sam Markanda (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reliable sources supporting notability. In particular, if you want to show WP:NCREATIVE for the work as a game designer, which might conceivably be possible, then there would need to be reviews in reliable sources of games. The article is promotional enough that it might anyway fall under WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  — Sam Markanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Vexations (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC). Vexations (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The secondary sources are there and the primary sources are used the way they ought to: WP:PRIMARY They make verifiable straightforward descriptive statements of facts. In fact those are mainly bibliographical references. Duly referenced institutional bios are used for points pertaining to the person's bio. AlexVDD (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added the games designed by the subject. And then also systematically added all the references there, which brings this to a higher standard than what is the norm in game designers BLP articles. Well, so much the better. Pandapedia8O0 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  (If not familiar with the area, do take a look. (Paul Lidberg, Brad Talton, Allen Eldridge)). Pandapedia8O0 (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  — Pandapedia8O0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Vexations (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC). Vexations (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal for deletion has served its purpose. Well done, the ensuing discussion has led to concrete improvements to the page. Recommend withdrawal of the deletion proposal by the nominator, in light of the discussion and of the additions to the article. Uliberty (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your suggestion. If the subject is only notable as a game designer, and not as a philosopher (or sculptor) then the article would need to be rewritten to make that clear. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck blocked socks, per WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sam_Markanda. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a prolific game designer is not enough for notability; we need evidence that the games have attracted attention (such as in published reviews), not present in the article as it stands. And even if that were the case, WP:TNT applies, both for most of the article and its focus on other stuff than game design, and for the pattern of promotional editing apparent here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best, WP:TOOSOON, plus there is some weird SPA/PAID/COI issue with accounts involved (and voting here, and getting blocked). Ironically, if the subject wants to promote themselves as a researcher, they should start by creating a Google Scholar account... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:TOOSOON appears to apply. I don't see any decent secondary independent sources in the article or with a quick search. I'm wondering a bit if the SPAs are Joe jobs of some sort, but doesn't matter, doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2021 (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.