Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieron Gillen 2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Gillen

[edit]

Non notable game journalist. Nothing substantial has changed since the last version of this article, which was deleted for non-notability. ScottNestle 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: KsprayDad 01:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, worked on a couple of notable magazines and website (such as PC Gamer and Eurogamer), high amount of Google results [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, working on a couple of notable magazines does not necessarily make one notable. --Coredesat 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite notable magazines, he hasn't done anything that notable --Alphachimp talk 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough - plenty of google hits, a couple of google news hits, reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes [2] and seems to write for Guardian Unlimited.[3] Also mentioned in a NY Times article. [4]. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks notable enough to me. // Gargaj 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although working for a notable magazine does not make on notable, I would say it helps a lot. Add to that the gooogle results, and I think this qualifies as notable. Viridae 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the musical is produced he will be notable. Note that the article cites no references, and of the three external links, two are Gillen's own sites and one of which was "originally written by Gillen." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Re Google hits: Google Web results are dicey because they are easily inflated by SEO, self promotion, bloggers scratching each others' backs, etc. The check I like to use is Google Groups. For "normal" queries, Google Groups typically yields in the ballpark of 1/4 to 1/10 as many hits as Google Web. In this case, the search yields only 31 hits, not convincing. And he gets no hits at all in Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authorial Comment - Er... people keep on forwarding this to me telling its been up for deletion a few times, so thought I should actually say a piece to try and get it sorted one way or another. I'd write up the entry myself, as it's clearly not up to par, but I really hate the ego-ification of Wikipedia: subjects clearly shouldn't write their own entry. Why did someone think me worth listing? I'd guess it was because I was the gentleman who coined the phrase New Games Journalism, which *does* have its own entry and kind of precipitated the whole debate about games journalism that's bubbled along for the last two years and annoyed just about everyone (Which is why I was cited in that New York Times Article, a few other hefty academic books, the occasional academic course and get invited to go speak at conferences and such - I started a "movement", God Damn Me). As far as I was aware, I was the first guy who won a real world award for his games writing back in 2000 when I won the PTC Best New Specialist Journalist award (Against people from the NME, New Scientist, Health and Fitness, etc). I've written for videogames, such as the script for the game Chaos League. Comics wise, god knows how Phonogram will be taken, but it's already had noted creators like Warren Ellis say that it's one of the top three singles of the year. And working for magazine-wise, I've worked for Wired, The Guardian newspaper (Where I wrote the first long-form videogame review in a mainstream newspaper ever), Edge, PC Gamer, Games Developer, Develop, MCV, Gamesmaster, PC Format and far too many others. Hopefully that's enough stuff to sort it out one way or another and stop people mailing me about it. In terms of comments on the entry, I don't think either Commercial Suicide or Kenickie.com are really that relevant. Generally speaking, keep up the good work. Wikipedia remains one of the marvels of the modern world. [Kieron Gillen] 18:00 21 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment no strong opinion one way or another (and from the looks of it my opinion wouldn't change things either way), and I've never heard of Mr. Gillen before the AfD, but it is damn refreshing to see someone who isn't violating WP:VAIN, screaming that the article about them is up for deletion, and actually takes the time to list sources and make a case per WP:BIO. Kudos to to you Kieron.--Isotope23 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. Wikipedia does need to have standards, and it should be beyond an individual's ego. If my entry was written to the same quality as my old comrade's Stuart Campbell's it wouldn't be an issue. -- Kieron 22:00 21 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment Kudos to you Kieron for the same reasons as above. Could you possibly provide some links to sources for editors of the article? Leave them on the articles talk page. Thanks. Viridae 23:32, 21 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kieron_Gillen_2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137971203"