Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (video game journalist): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:01, 7 August 2007

Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)

This article is about a guy who wrote in videogames magazines about 10 years ago. These days he's an entirely unnotable freelance journalist who seems to struggle to get anything published at all. Many of the incidents described in the article are pretty irrelevant, and the sourcing and overall written style of the article is pretty poor. I believe the entry itself was first created by Campbell himself, otherwise it wouldn't exist at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs)16:26, 6 August 2007. — Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Not notable. --81.178.249.75 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 81.178.249.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not notable. --PEAR (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not temporary, so the fact that he's less successful now than he used to be is irrelevant. However, the lack of secondary sources and the general shabbiness of the article make it hard to make a case for keeping it. Iain99 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article is in awful shape at the moment. In fact, I'd say it's one of the worst I've read. It is a bit aggrandising, and it does reek a bit of conflict of interest. But an article being a bad one is not a reason to delete. There is no doubt that this person has been notable. As Iain99 says, notability isn't temporary. So what if he isn't doing much nowadays? Neither is Margaret Thatcher. Right now, the article has no sources. But is it an article "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"? I'd say not. He's been interviewed quite a lot. So I say, keep it. Put a {{rewrite}} on it. Re-stub it if needs be. But to say that someone who wrote for many national magazines, and for teletext for numerous years isn't notable is ridiculous. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's no more or less notable than any other videogames journalist. His having had work published in national videogames magazines is not in itself something noteworthy, and he really doesn't meet any notability criteria at all. --Mayor mike haggar (talk) 12.06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Poorly written article for a non-notable individual. Mr. Scare 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a videogames journalist is not in itself especially noteworthy. There are thousands of people who have contributed to magazines over the years, it would be lunacy to suggest they should all have their own page. I would suggest anybody who knows his name would know who he was, and would not require a page like this anyway. Also, the article is clearly written by the subject himself and is little more than a one sided propaganda piece. Look at the section on copyright, and especially the section on "Cannon Fodder". I don't think offending a load of old soldiers is anything to be particularly proud of, as he seems to be.Henry Of Monmouth 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *'''Delete''' He's no more or less notable than any other videogames journalist.  His having had work published in national videogames magazines is not in itself something noteworthy, and he really doesn't meet any notability criteria at all. --[[User:Mayor mike haggar|Mayor mike haggar]] ([[User talk:Mayor mike haggar|talk]]) 12.06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' Poorly written article for a non-notable individual. [[User:Mr. Scare|Mr. Scare]] 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Being a videogames journalist is not in itself especially noteworthy. There are thousands of people who have contributed to magazines over the years, it would be lunacy to suggest they should all have their own page. I would suggest anybody who knows his name would know who he was, and would not require a page like this anyway. Also, the article is clearly written by the subject himself and is little more than a one sided propaganda piece. Look at the section on copyright, and especially the section on "Cannon Fodder". I don't think offending a load of old soldiers is anything to be particularly proud of, as he seems to be.[[User:Henry Of Monmouth|Henry Of Monmouth]] 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)