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

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.

• Keep - You miserable bastards.
• 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.
• Delete not notable. --PEAR (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep Because of course that's the entirety of the situation. "Offending a few soldiers". That's all that happened. Of course. Obviously keep it, it's a perspective on some of the golden age of gaming and the Cannon Fodder incidents was one of the first rumblings of an effect that now leads us to have adult games like Manhunt 2 completely banned because "well games are for kids aren't they". 87.194.49.241 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Well, games are for kids, aren't they.
• Keep These complaints appear to be entirely personally motivated. Very similar entries such as that for Julian Rignall have not been subjected to such requests. The claim that the subject created the entry himself is entirely unsubstantiated. As for the standard of the entry, I have now edited it to supply citations from various sources for most of the challenged items.
• Comment This entry has being flagged for deletion clearly as part of a vendetta by someone who is not a "fan" of the entry's subject. There's no rationale for deletion while other journalists from the era have unchallenged entries, and as such it should be recognised that this challenge is a personal grudge, and not something relevant to Wikipedia's qualifications for deletion.
• Delete Not notable, and it's irrelevant to point out other instances of where another non-notable individual's article has not been AfDed. 81.178.249.168 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are we to assume, then, that every journalist, and by extension every magazine and newspaper, is to be deleted? Because this particular subject is unquestionably one of, if not the, most notable in his field, and if his entry is to be deleted then it's hard to see how a case can be made to keep ANY periodical publication. It would be a lot more convincing if any of the people arguing for deletion had also taken the simple steps to request the deletion of similar other entries, many of which are linked from this very article and are therefore easy to find. The justification for claiming this to be a specifically personal attack is equally easy to observe - for example, the highly offensive recent editing of the subject's name to "Stuart 'Raper' Campbell". From that and several other edits it is abundantly obvious that this request is malicious in nature, rather than concerned for the integrity of Wikipedia.
• Comment Hello. I am Stuart Campbell, something which Wikipedia is welcome to verify via the email address supplied to create this account. I have no intention of debating my own "notability", but wish to absolutely deny the claim that I was in any way responsible for the creation of my entry here. I did not create it, did not request anyone else to create it, and have no knowledge of who did. This debate seems to me wholly motivated by personal animosity, and I do recognise some of the usernames of those involved as people who have previously shown hostility towards me on internet forums and the like, but the issue is clearly for Wikipedia to decide.