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 redirect to International Game Developers Association#History. Once discounting SPAs, this is a slim consensus, but there is one to redirect. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest W. Adams[edit]

Ernest W. Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Most sources are just for the books. It's written like a resume. It says known for "Founding the IGDA", and the organization could be notable, but not sure whether Adams is independently notable.

He is a "senior lecturer / associate professor" at a Swedish university. https://katalog.uu.se/profile/?id=N13-98, so WP:Academic may apply. I'm not familiar with his field to evaluate notability, so hoping to get some feedback from those who are more familiar of the game design field. Swil999 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

— JoeKazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ... Mister or Ms. Anonymous, given that you have admitted that you know nothing about the subject, you should stop proposing edits about it. "I've heard of Atari, but I've never heard of Nolan Bushnell, so I suggest that we delete his page." Your own ignorance is a poor excuse for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWAdams (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't attack other editors. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 15:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinBear: It's not suppressing that he wouldn't want his own article deleted. It looks like the last commenter is an SPA account. You might want to look into if this AfD has been mentioned anywhere outside of Wikipedia or if the SPA is a sock of EWAdams. I wouldn't be surprised if either were true. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that proposing a delete when you know nothing about the subject is not a very sensible approach to take. I report that Adams is well-known in the computer games field not only as the founder of its leading association for game developers but as a senior theorist and educator in the field. He is also the author of a whole set of well-regarded books on games topics, of which the best-known is probably Games mechanics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthaylett (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ernest Adams is a noted figure in the video game industry for many works, including being a founder of IGDA. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ernest W. Adams is a pioneer in the Games Industry. It is absurd to consider deleting his Wiki page. The person that proposed this deletion has disqualified himself and this should be removed on that basis alone. "Well-known" in the field is an understatement. In some regards he is the Asimov of Game Development writing (and creating) (both prolific and an exceptionally well-known pioneer in the field). Fundamentals of Game Design alone (now in it's 3'rd printing) is enough in and of itself to warrant his inclusion in Wiki. To just about anyone in the business of Game Development, the guy is a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKazz (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC) — JoeKazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
• Academic; notable in field.
• Author and co-author; subject of research by readers.

^[1] Basicporch (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to International Game Developers Association#History as a WP:ATD. So far I am seeing numerous interviews but little in the way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I would like to see pretty much any of the people voting Keep put forth WP:THREE best sources (that aren't interviews) to demonstrate that this article is unequivocally notable beyond a shadow of a doubt._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Zxcvbnm. It seems like his claim is pretty much the IGDA and its probably for the best to redirect him to that page. GamerPro64 05:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the other people who recommended it. Most of his notability seems to come from the work he's done with the IGDA and the coverage of him outside of that is mostly primary and (or) trivial. So as a stand alone subject he clearly doesn't warrant an article, but redirecting it as an alternative to deletion is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion with blocked socks Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4256 citations in Google Scholar. WTF does it take to satisfy the Wikipedia oligarchy? EWAdams (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] I argue best by analogy. Let's redirect "Neil Armstrong's" page, to the Space Program or the Moon's wiki page because he doesn't seem to have had much impact beyond that "Small Step for Man" thing. All the counter arguments seem to come down to..."I've never heard of the guy, so he must not have had much impact as an individual" - It's Dunning-Kruger at it's finest. JoeKazz (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] I edited the above because I was told I wasn't civil enough. It's now as civil as I can be while still pointing out the basic wrong-headedness of this entire discussion. It's really quite silly.JoeKazz (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] One last question: Why is there both a Harper Lee and a To Kill a Mockingbird Wiki pages?JoeKazz (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] That is a ridiculous comparison because the subject of this AfD is simply not on par with Harper Lee or Neil Armstrong in terms of prominence and societal impact. If he was, he would absolutely merit an article. Notability not being inherited, the person must prove that they are worthy of covering independently of what they created. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily have to be by notoriety, but by infamy as well. SOME kind of significant coverage is necessary).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] It's not ridiculous. Within the members the world-wide Game Dev. Community, Ernest is a Pioneer on par with Neil Armstrong, and much more prolific as Harper Lee. 25,000+ people attend the GDC each year at Moscone in San Francisco (Pre-Covid). I'd wager that most of those attending know and have read Ernest, and that at least a third of them could pick him out by sight. I don't think you can say the same for Neil or Harper. He's even more famous than Rami Ismail (who's Wiki-Page is quite sparse in comparison (yet not challenged)).JoeKazz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ah, the old "keep because some people from a random tech conference know him" argument, classic. Like ApLundell says, your not doing yourself any favors here with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, The comments by new users are clouding the issue and will probably achieve exactly what they're trying to prevent simply by depleting everyone's patience. However, if anybody in the field of game design qualifies for WP:AUTHOR#1 for being a widely cited author within his field, it would be Adams. He is a respected and widely cited author of both academic and practical works in his field. ("Weak" because the article, as it stands, is just a CV. There's no discussion or his work or its impacts and no criticism of it. I believe that Adams is notable, but not much actual content is in danger here.) ApLundell (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Adams has three books with hundreds of citations. Somewhere between WP:NPROF C1 / C4 and WP:NAUTHOR C1, I think that this meets notability. Weak, because I would normally expect to find book reviews of notable books, and I did not quickly find such. The article needs significant reworking to focus on his notable career telling people how to design games, and less on his work for game studios, but I don't think it's quite so bad as for WP:TNT. The article may require watchlisting from neutral editors against the pattern of COI and sock editing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sometimes people confuse WP:NAUTHOR with direct proof of notability. Just because a subject seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR doesn't mean they are notable, just that they are more likely to be, as stated in the section's description. Its not a free pass if the article still clearly fails WP:GNG, as seems to be the case here, since nobody has put forward any proof to the contrary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right about WP:NAUTHOR. WP:NPROF, on the other hand, explicitly does not require GNG to be met. I also comment, per ApLundell, that the SPAs and socks may have distracted from the business of searching for significant coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this guy's books and articles come up all the time when I search for video game related topics and I think you could write an article just summarizing his scholarship very easily. Jorahm (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. There has to be actual secondary sources about the author, not just things he wrote that one can summarize and make original research. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:29, 14 November 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.