Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas

Dominic McDowall-Thomas

[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)

None of this article's references are to a WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds a plethora of either fleeting mentions or inclusion on small hobby game websites or blogs, none of which are themselves RS. This appears to be part of an expansive WP:WALLEDGARDEN that also includes entries for his company Cubicle 7, etc. Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Designers and Dragons is most certainly a reliable source, and the subject is also in receipt of multiple notable awards. If you can't do a ~~competent~~ BEFORE in a certain domain, don't file for deletion in it, is my motto... Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Designers and Dragons is most certainly a reliable source I value your opinion but, based on a combination of publisher and author, I don't share it. Further, a single source does not establish GNG. the subject is also in receipt of multiple notable awards I'm not sure the "Silver EEnie Roleplaying Gamer Trophy" is what WP:NAUTHOR has in mind under inherent notability via notable awards. I think the idea is more along the lines of the Man Booker Prize, the Pulitzer, the Caldecott Medal, etc. If you can't do a competent BEFORE in a certain domain, don't file for deletion in it, is my motto... In general, in AfD, we escalate up to calling each other incompetent, rather than coming out of the gate guns blazing. Just a friendly FYI. Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about you earn your competence spurs in this area, Chetsford. Designers & Dragons is a four-volune work that has gone through two editions, written by a professional in the field (who is entirely independent of Cubicle 7) and published completely independently of Cubicle 7. It is therefore an independent, reliable source for this and the other Cubicle 7- related articles and YOUDONTLIKEIT is not any kind of mark against its reliability. ~~CIR, man.~~ Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A work's page length or volume count is of no relevance in establishing whether it is RS. The Designers & Dragons game book is supposedly an historical-biographical source. To properly evaluate it we look at the publisher's reliability as a gatekeeper in the field of historical publishing, the author's credentials as an historian, and whether the source is - itself - referenced in unambiguously RS. To that extent:

Is the publisher a competent gatekeeper of historical or biographical works?: The publisher is a small novelty t-shirt manufacturer and card game company that has no physical address and this appears to be their only non-fiction publication. [1]
Is the author a credible historian?: The author, Shannon Appelcline, has undertaken no scholarly publishing indexed by Google Scholar, makes no claims to advanced degrees in the field of history (or any field, it seems) [2], makes no claims to membership in any learned society, and - from Google News - has never been quoted as a source on this subject in any RS.
Is the work generally accepted as reliable by other RS?: A check through Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR and I'm unable to turn up any RS that itself sources the Designers & Dragons puzzle book.

Therefore, I can affirmatively state that the Designers & Dragons puzzle book is definitely non-RS in any sense, least of all to the high standards demanded by WP:BLP.

This, of course, is aside from the fact that - even if it were RS (which it is not) - a single mention of someone in a single source is insufficient to establish GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Designers & Dragons a reliable source?

Seriously, Chetsford, are you unable to work Google Scholar or Google Books? I see 22 references to the first volume of Designers & Dragons second edition, in Google scholar alone, along with additional citations of the first (Mongoose) Edition. https://gfy23kpax02.storage.googleapis.com/MTYxMzE3MDg0WA==02.pdf

Designers & Dragons is also cited in the following books, among others:

Peterson (2012) Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People and Fantastic Adventures, from Chess to Role-playing Games (referencing the first edition)

Witwer (2015) Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons

Byers & Coroso (2016) The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs (2016)

Desterding & Zagal (2018) Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations (published by ducking Routledge, the first text in its field)

Considering how recently Designers & Dragons was published and how little scholarly publication has yet been done on RPGs, this is certainly a significant enough uptake to establish its reliability in the subject area.

Your Cubicle 7 AfDs remind me of the AfD of Emily Care Boss by people who just DONTLIKEIT or don't get it. ~~Such ignorant gestures are frankly an embarassment to the encyclopedia.</>Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~My tone was inappropriate for this venue and I have redacted my comments as a gesture of apology. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, by referring to Designers & Dragons as a "game book" or a "puzzle book" you are simply discrediting yourself. It is neither of these things. It is a respected historical source for the Role-playing industry, well reviewed in other publications, researched by an expert with decades of professional writing experience. If you can't find the works that cite it, that is a CIR issue for you and nothing else. Also the discussion of Cubicle 7 and its publications throughout Designers & Dragons is much more than "a single mention". Please stop writing about things you can't characterize accurately. Newimpartial (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In ref to your comment:
I see 22 references to the first volume of Designers & Dragons I, too, saw that. I stand by what I said: "I'm unable to turn up any RS" (emphasis added). This, of course, is aside from the fact that Dominic McDowall-Thomas will need more than simply being acknowledged in Designers & Dragons to pass GNG or ANYBIO. He needs significant coverage in a variety of RS. Ergo, even if Designers & Dragons was RS (it isn't) Dominic McDowall-Thomas still fails GNG / ANYBIO for lack of reference in any other RS.
No, by NAUTHOR as long as the article subject has produced notable works and sufficient sources exist to create an encyclopedia entry (which we clearly have in this case), the article passes WP:N. (Not that there aren't other RS, just that they aren't needed for Notability.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that is a CIR issue for you CIR issues are addressed at WP:ANI, not AFD.

the discussion of Cubicle 7 and its publications throughout Designers & Dragons is much more than "a single mention" This is not an AFD on Cubicle 7. This is an AFD on Dominic McDowall-Thomas.
It is frankly an embarassment to the encyclopedia. So far you've thrice indicated I'm incompetent, you've called my mere presence on WP an "embarassment" [sic], and you've indicated my nominating this at AFD is an "ignorant gesture". If you believe I'm an incompetent and ignorant embarrassment, you'll need to request I be community banned at WP:ANI. If it's just hyperbole, you'll need to tone it down just a bit.

Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say I have strong feelings about AfD nominators who can't, or won't, carry out a competent BEFORE. Certainly your sloppy treatment of the sources citing Designers & Dragons - which included the new standard Routledge text in the field - was pretty scandalous. But I am saying that these actions are "ignorant" and "an embarrassment", not you personally. And I never bring anyone to ANI for a "first offense" even if they do something actionable; also, not all levels of CIR are actionable in my view; some just need to be called out. Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"not all levels of CIR are actionable in my view; some just need to be called out" Again, AFD is not a place for "call outs". You need to use this space to discuss the AFD, not to discuss your opinion of other editors. Repeatedly declaring another editor incompetent in an AFD while simultaneously saying no "actionable" concerns exist is essentially an acknowledgment that this is just a drive-by personal attack. If you have concerns please take them to ANI. If you don't want to take them to ANI then you either need to ruminate on them in a non-expressive format or post them to your Sandbox, Userpage, or Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are doing to refer to tabletop role-playing games as "puzzle games" or "board games" - which declares that you have no idea what you are nominating - and then deny the reliability of the major historical source for the field - even though you know it has been cited in scholarly articles and a Routledge text - then I am going to point out that CIR. The only alternative would be to assume bad faith, which I am reluctant to do. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, this AFD is not a place to raise questions about the competence of individual editors. In fact, our WP:CIR policy implicitly precludes accusing other editors of CIR outside of an incident forum or on an individual editor's Talk page. Again, WP:ANI is the forum you need to use (or my Talk page). Thank you for your future help in keeping this forum topical and civil. Chetsford (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says that "generally" the term incompetent doesn't help; it a!so says that things should not be brought to ANI. But you are right; this is a talk page topic. I will refrain from commenting further on competence issues here. Peace out. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]