Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Shaver - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 keep. MBisanz talk 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Shaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article does not assert notability, nor give reliable sources from which notability might be inferred. The subject has written some stories, none of which seem notable, and worked on some games which do have articles, but this does not confer notability on her. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First she didn't just "work on some games", for Hero's Journey she was the lead designer. This is an interview with the person. Since I don't know much about the subject, I'm not all that good at finding sources about her, but what I have found is enough to convince me that she is a reasonably well-known figure in the field of fantasy literature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Lead designer on a game is a significant role and the ISFDB shows this isn't just a random hobby writer. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article is currently unsourced, looking past the first page of Google results (which are mostly this page, her own personal site, and a few blogs) for her name show quite a few sources that could be used for this article. She is also mentioned in a number of books on Google Books outside of her own novels, though they all seem to be passing mentions. Orbital Delegate (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As an author she passes WP:N for coverage in Locus, ISFDB[1](two entries as it's not determined yet which version of the author's name is canonical), and scifi-fantasy-info.com. These sites all satisfy all the bullets in WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ with the exception that Locus does not have an article dedicated to her. In terms of verifiability, ISFDB and Locus also link to the anthologies her work has appeared in. As a game designer she's been the subject of at least one dedicated independent coverage interview, was asked to write for part of this article, and a column on another web site. At minimum, she's been acknowledged as the lead designer for a game and as a result attracted notice. Lack of notability for someone's work nor lack of sources in an article are grounds for deletion. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as originator. The guidelines for people in general say "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [...] trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Mere listings of what work a person has done or published are surely insufficient. For creative professionals, the relevant tests are "widely cited by their peers", "a significant new concept, theory or technique", "a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", "work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." None of these appear to be satisfied. Have the stories or games been the subject of a book or multiple periodical articles or reviews? I think not. In fact the only game on which she is reported to be lead designer has not appeared yet. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, if a cite or source can be found for the claim that she was the youngest member ever to join SFWA. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I have no real stake in the issue (I did one minor edit on her page recently), I find the arguments for more compelling than those against. Plus I have a bias toward retaining articles when in doubt. BPK (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - She seems to be a popular guest writer - in addition to those columns posted by Mark Kupper, she's written for GDMag. However, being a prolific writer isn't a factor. Lead designer for Hero's Journey would probably satisfy notability for creative professions, providing it receives the required coverage. However, the main issue for me here is verifiability - independent refs? Marasmusine (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still struggling with what the metrics for notability are. When I started editing on WP I took a very conservative view of the policies and as a result viewed many articles as AfD material. Is Stephanie Shaver notable? Realistically, the answer is a flat out "no." The only reason I heard of her and ran across the WP article is because I read an anthology and when done with it I went through all of the author burbs and crossed checked them against WP and ISFDB had I not done the cross check I would not have taken note of Shaver at all. The x-check happened and as a result I updated her WP article, wondered why she even had an article, and forgot about it. More recently I've swung towards a more inclusive view where I'm viewing WP as a resource that should contain articles on subjects where it's possible people in a wide area would want to look something up about the subject. There are two fuzzy words; "possible" and "wide area." As an author she has had short stories published in two magazine and in 12 anthologies over a 19 year period. I don't know if this is typical in the game business or if Simutronics is an exception but the company publicity credits the contributors to their games much like movie credits. She appears to be active in on line forums and conventions (both fantasy fiction and games) which also increases her exposure. Thus the "possible" is above zero and the areas would be people who read her stories, play a game she's involved with, or participate in one of the forums or conventions she's active in. When the AfD came up I took a look at the notability policies and a scan for available evidence. With a liberal/inclusive mindset she clearly passes. With a conservative mindset she clearly does not pass the notability tests. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a wide paintbrush, there, as well as an incorrect statement in which I take offense. I consider myself fairly liberal (I do support Barack Obama and many of the staff), but I do support deletion of articles of subjects that do not meet the notability criteria as prescribed by policy. Politics aside, I believe in the process as it should be intended – that users exercise other alternatives (as listed in WP:BEFORE) before considering the deletion route. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a haven for unsourced biographies of living people in which actual people can potentially be damaged by the content possibly posted here. I am still neutral as what I think about the article, but I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found and quickly. MuZemike 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using conservative/liberal in their standard meaning and not the Conservative or Liberal political persuasion. Interpretation of WP policy is much like how people can read the 27 words comprising the Second Amendment and come away with wildly different, and strong, beliefs as to what it means.
re: "I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found." WP:SELFPUB fully supports that we can use Stephanie Shaver's own web site and writings about herself as sources for for the bio part of this article. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources and so we don't know if what's already there is accurate. Her author bibliography has already been independently verified from RS. I believe her game stuff has been too. Those are the reasons for notability and so it's a matter of someone taking the refs dug up in this thread and using them in the article assuming the consensus is "keep." --Marc Kupper|talk 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the sources mentioned above, she's been a guest at Dragon*Con.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is she notable in her field(s)? That is, has she won any awards of any sort? She's got books. She's got software. She's bound to have an article or two written about her. But given that her work is out there, what does anybody think of it - in terms of awards or recognition that she's more than just another author/programmer? Rklawton (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There's a lot of sources out there that cite her, but they provide only a weak case for her notability, not a compelling one. She wouldn't need much more to establish notability—a significant, documented contribution to even a single game would probably change my mind. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked at WP:PEOPLE again and went down it point by point.
    • Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
      • Has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable.
      • Is not the subject "none-substantial" coverage from multiple independent sources.
    • Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography
      • Has not received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
      • Has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
    • Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
      • Is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
      • Is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
      • Has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
      • Has not either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
    • She qualifies for getting handled under Failing all criteria and now we are looking at Special cases. I thought about her stories being selected by notable anthologists but that does not count as it's not "Stephanie Shaver" being the subject of recognition but rather that her story got it. A notable anthologist can't confer notability on her anthologies, nor can the anthologies confer notability on the stories, nor can the stories confer notability on the authors... She works for the game company and so recognition by them is not independent. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:22, 8 March 2009 (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.