Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 11

11 March 2009

Randy Rasputin Richards

Randy Rasputin Richards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• The author is now notable, thanks to his interview in a printed magazine article of a major periodical in Louisiana, and his third appearance in a major newspaper (although more the former than the later - I only include it as part of the body of evidence that continues to accumulate). I was informed last time at least a full page interview was required for notability, and that when notability occurred I could put the article back. References are noted in the article, but I can paste them here for convenience: http://www.inregister.com:8080/rrserver/browser?title=/InRegister/InRegisterFeb09 and http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/38438679.html?index=1&c=y respectively. On the first link, be sure to wait until the magazine browser loads (it takes a minute) so you can page through the magazine. Randy Richards appears on page 20 in a full page article, and in the index in a photo on page 1. In case anyone asks, "Rasputin" is his middle name. Thank you. Malakai Joe (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The deleting editor directed me here by saying "I would urge you to post a review at WP:DRV when you think that the article(s) is (are) finally ready for republication." and then after some discussion "However, it is indeed a full-page interview, so it may persuade some people in a DRV." In the interest of full disclosure, you can review the discusion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram#Randy_Richards

• Endorse deletion AfD was a mess, with pleny of badly-behaved socks/meats coming apparently from Richards himself, but it did reach a very form consensus to delete. The Advocate mention was actually considered at the AfD, so it isn't anything new, and the first is neither enough to build an article around nor enough to overturn a very solid AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm waiting for the meat puppets and sock puppets to show up any minute. Anyway, Starblind, are you saying that once an article has been deleted that its HARDER to get it reinstated? With all due respect, this latest magazine interview is EXACTLY the type of thing I was told would be required to get the article reinstated. Would you please outline the new standards so I can avoid this sort of thing in the future? I don't want to waste people's time with deletion review after deletion review, if the bar has been raised. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. The Advocate mention is new, it is from February 3rd of 2009. You're probably thinking of the other two Advocate newspaper articles about him. Apparently even three times in the newspaper is not enough. I hope he reaches a critical mass soon. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The book Dreadmire has lost its license as the D20 3.5 license was revoked. The author has failed to update many of the issues of slander and misdirection. The goal of the article is based on the need to maintain an advertising presence for continued sales. And the author has noted his happiness at having the article deleted as noted here at the D&D wikia site: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Randy_Richards. The article fails to clarify any points from the article and the photo op was an accident, he showed up uninvited and in uniform and happened to get his picture in the paper.Quode (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The OGL is not revocable, although the new GSL is incompatible with it. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The d20 STL was published at the same time as the OGL, and was used to license WotC trademarked "d20 logo" in order to signify compatibility with other d20 System products, most notably D&D 3rd Edition. The license was revoked on June 6th 2008 upon the launch of the D&D 4th Edition Game System License (GSL), although publishers using the license were permitted a 6-month sell-off period for products in channel still bearing the logo. Quode (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but you can still use the 3rd and 3.5 SRD and other items, you just can't put the d20 logo on them. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, again you are correct.Its the existing backlog a publisher has that is the issue. Quode (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Permit a rewrite The original AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Richards. I would say relist, except a considerably more compact and less promotional article would have a better chance. DGG (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do that. Recommendations are welcome. Malakai Joe (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Starblind. I have very little time for people who choose to recreate articles under a new title to get around deletion and/or salting. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see any increase in notability here from the previous incarnations; the magazine article looks to be local color, and I don't actually see his name mentioned in that Advocate article linked above (and I read it three times to try and find it). Keep deleted, and suggest that if consensus doesn't emerge for a restore here that the submitting editor use userspace next time instead of pushing directly into article space with a new draft. And, as Stifle notes, using a new article name to get around previous deletions is not on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper article only mentions him in the photograph caption. I only included it for completeness. The jist of the notability is his appearance in a major local magazine in a full page interview. Are you saying notability has to be world wide? Malakai Joe (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If a page in a local publication confers notability, I've created literally hundreds of notable people in my career. I may be in a minority (and get that sense lately), but I feel that a couple of local references aren't enough to prove that a person meets the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Local notability is much harder for non-locals to judge, than, say, vs. national-notability, or vs. worldwide-notability. A good example is Mr. Bingle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bingle. Mr. Bingle is not known very far outside of New Orleans, and barely known inside it anymore. Mr. Bingle is a local department store's marketing character. I'm not saying the character is not notable, but that he is notable only locally, like Randy Richards. How do you define local notability? I guess I am looking for numbers -- 5 newspaper/magazine articles? 10? 25? What size distribution does the newspaper/magazine have to possess? Etc. If I can get a solid number, I can come back when the threshold is reached. Malakai Joe (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference, though, is that the character you reference has been discussed in other media, and described as a "New Orleans icon for 50 years" in other media - there are several stories in newspapers from around the country about how it was a centrepiece of New Orleans post-Katrina. (The article needs more references, mind you, but the character definitely shows notability out of that.) I really suggest just leaving it be for now, if this discussion comes out as endorsing the delete; if coverage extends outside of the local area, or if it continues for multiple articles over time in his local area, then resubmit. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is where things get vague and confusing for me. He's already had coverage outside his local area, and he's been in multiple articles over time (10+ years, not 50+ like Mr. Bingle). So how many more articles, and how much more time? Not trying to be difficult here, just seeking concrete information (annoying as it may be) to avoid future deletes. Thanks for your advice. Malakai Joe (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One point to consider is the Dreadmire/Spellbinder message board and web presence. If the book was as popular and widely distributed as claimed this board would be alive with fan comments, questions, stories and exploits. This type of outpouring of support is common for popular publishers. To date, after over 3 years there is very little traffic other than Randys lone posts that also get no support or comment. As an author he has created no material to expand the Dreadmire world or a Dreadmire website to support it. From the fan side, I cannot find any web sites where the world is expanded and new adventures written. Popular authors like Monty Cook stay in the game, are part of many web sites and contribute wildly to discussions and new material. There is no evidence that Randy is part of the RPG community within the web sphere beyond his small circle. 71.139.46.200 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the fans know this is going on. However the fans did show up the first time. Besides even if tons of real fans did show, they would be considered meat puppets anyway, so what's the point? Malakai Joe (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't intentionally use a new article name to get around previous deletions. Lately I've been including his middle name in Wiki articles when I learned there are other people named Randy Richards on the Internet. And yes, I tried using userspace, but the cyberstalker who commented above, Quode, continues to vandalize that userspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malakai_Joe/Randy_Richards. There is no safe place to put the article from her. Malakai Joe (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But you did rename the Dreadmire article as well, care to explain? Quode (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dreadmire links in the article were from another wiki where its entry is "Dreadmire Book" and the text links still say "Dreadmire". I clicked one of those "Dreadmire" links to create the article without realizing I was bypassing anything. In the future I'll know not to do that. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note - from the posts on my talk page, there's a definite off-Wiki battle that's being pursued here between User:Malakai Joe and User:Quode; I've asked both to stop interacting with one another here where possible. I'm keeping an eye on this page to ensure that heads remain cool. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, but allow an entry on List of role-playing game designers. I think this compromise would give Richards coverage in suitable proportion to his notability when compared to other RPG designers.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but his notability expands beyond gaming. In Louisiana he is known for his gaming book, thats true, but also operating a science fiction convention, giving lectures on science, a TV personality, and award winning photography of hurricane Katrina and swamps. Malakai Joe (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Normally I'd shoot for allowing recreation given the new source, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the old state of the article (seen in the cache) and parts of this discussion. I'd suggest that a proposed article be provided in user space before we allow recreation. Also the debate about the SRD/OGL etc. I think is irrelevant (though I'm surprised how many people understand it!) as nobility isn't temporary.Hobit (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)