Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Tinney

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 no consensus. I wrote up a lengthy closing statement, and had it frustratingly erased by an edit-conflict. So I'll summarize by saying that arguments on both sides here are generally based in policy, and cannot simply be set aside; reasonable editors can and do disagree on whether the sources provided here are substantive. Given the high participation, there seems to be no purpose served by relisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tinney

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Newimpartial with the following rationale "Additional secondary source added; meets NBASIC". I am afraid I disagree, the new source seems like a brief press release. I stand by my view that this person does not meet NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the threshold for significant coverage is whether the (independent, reliable) source contributes material from which an encyclopaedic article can be written. This is clearly the case for at least two sources used in the present article; it therefore meets NBASIC and therefore WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial, as I believe VG247 which Newimpartial added is a WP:RS source. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps at all, the Vice article I added has a little more information about him. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would seem that he could qualify under WP:NCREATIVE#3 having a collective body of work he was a creator or co-creator of. Part of this has to be taken at face value of WP editors that came before, but I will WP:AGF. Clearly part of the body of work seems to be Mind's Eye Theatre (for being specifically called out by Appelcline in Designers & Dragons, which seemed to cover him pretty broadly according to the article) and Rage (where there are only two creatives listed). That's a body right there that would qualify when pushing NCREATIVE to its limit. That plus the ability to actually write the biographical information thanks to the Designers & Dragons book push past failing WP:NOTRESUME/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That alone is a bit thin, but following the pages linking to him, he's also a designer of Aberrant, Hunter: The Reckoning, and Vampire: The Requiem. These games list many more designers, so it's a bit harder to judge his individual contributions, but I don't think they should be dismissed. The World of Darkness series post 2002 probably would probably add more to his body of work given the statement by Appelcline that games in the line underwent massive changes, but I can't really verify much beyond that, so this part just nudges me past weak keep, and definitly past a redirect (although redirecting to White Wolf Publishing might make sense, it does face WP:X or Y problems, dismissing more specific works). -2pou (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Mind's Eye Theatre is the single most important credit, and it is worth noting that "Line manager" in the RPG space is primarily a creative/game design position, not a marketing position. The subject's work in LARP, tabletop and CCG domains mitigates against any redirect options.

The article, of course, sucks, but that isn't a policy-relevant argument at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming this is the same guy who is getting RS news coverage for the fitness startup mentioned at the end of the article. Content like this makes me strongly suspect they are. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Rage (collectible card game). Fails WP:NBIO. Like most game designers, this individual has not received in-depth, independent coverage by reliable secondary sources. The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, like keep !votes have suggested, it's the lack of significant coverage of the subject of the article, which is a requisite for NBIO. I also don't think that WP:NCREATIVE#3 applies when the body of work has not been covered by independent and/or reliable sources; and X or Y "problems" are not real problems when the page gets 1 view a day. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources presented below with respect to the health-gaming startup of the subject of this article are all industry-related PR press. They also either do not cover the subject in depth, or when they do it's in the format of interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and not independent from the author, and therefore do count towards WP:NBIO in my view. Pilaz (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the four references are press releases that are about company mergers. The fourth reference is a very brief announcement. I don't have access to the first reference, which does seem substantial. But that's only one reference. Looking in Google books I can find him mentioned once in this book, once in another book. There's a Mike Tinney who wrote "The Secret Life of the Pencil" but I can't ascertain if it's the same person. I'm just not finding enough for an article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is largely about the subject. [2] is about his work, but he's quoted a fair bit. There are plenty of sources like that one. With the first source in the article, I think we are past WP:N. Keep. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of the individual in the sources is not sufficient in-depth to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: most of the article, and in particular the quasi-totality of the Appelcline-sourced paragraph, is word-for-word plagiarism of Appelcline's second edition of the volume Designers & Dragons (vol 3: '90-'99). Please see the template on the article for more information. Editors wishing to contribute to this AfD are recommended to look at the history to get a full picture of the state of the article prior to replying to this AfD. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see that I unfortunately copied the first sentence word-for-word when I started the article in 2015, and the rest of that paragraph has some close paraphrasing and a few phrases copied verbatim; I rewrote that section under Talk:Mike Tinney/Temp per the instructions, so please review to make sure it is rewritten sufficiently. BOZ (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed, de-plagiarized imo. A link on Talk:Mike Tinney to the temp is the next step, BOZ. I'm going to ask the copyvio admins/clerks if they can make this article skip the line, given that it's at AfD. Pilaz (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the rewrite and it's acceptable and have installed it in the article. Thanks BOZ for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a very short article based on several secondary sources now, which is, as Newimpartial has already said, the basic criterion for notability. The discussion here has also turned up several more sources, so someone unhappy with the current length could use those to expand the article. Daranios (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure if the articles that are currently in there make Tinney notable enough, but I think all of them plus his work as the CEO of FIX Health *do* make him pass WP:NBIO. Other sources include (and to be clear, not all of these are probably reliable sources, but this is just me cherrypicking the first few that have shown up): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Nomader (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White Wolf Publishing or, alternatively, if there is no agreeable redirect target, delete. No source has been provided that shows Tinney himself as the subject of coverage. He is covered peripherally in relation to White Wolf, thus that is how we should cover him as well. The fitness press above (including Benefit News) is all puff press, quoting him as CEO but not giving any actual detail on him or his life or even the company. czar 16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to White Wolf Publishing, per Czar.--Alexandra^IDV 10:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: As written this is not a biography or even close. Fails NBIO and SIGCOV. I don't understand the want or need to keep pseudo biographies. In this case supported by industry related sources (clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT or reliable) such as this, that jumps on the side of advertising. A company source that gives passing mention is not a biographical source (might be acceptable as content sourcing but not advancing notability) leaving the article looking like a resume and not a biography. We should be very clear on biographies and not "assume" or surmise if there is notability for an article, using respected mainstream publications. At present this article is about the career of a subject (or related companies) with zero customary biographical information such as when born etc... -- Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:RESUME does not apply to this case, nor is Mike Tinney known "only in connection with a single event". Daranios (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to this vote, I would point out that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - the vote doesn't address the Notability of the BLP subject at all, only the current article, and is therefore strictly irrelevant at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It addresses the concerns of the nominator, which are NBIO and SIGCOV, which are both integral parts of our notability guidelines, and it discusses several sources in detail. That's unquestionably more source analysis than you have provided in this discussion. Pilaz (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails WP:BIO. Otr500 is spot on. Not sure where you'd merge this to, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A "ditto" !vote to a non-policy-based rationale is essentially a null !vote, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (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.