This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 , leaning towards keep. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article or do not back up assertions that the subject is not notable. The keep arguments are much, much stronger, but without some additions to the article about how Haywood is a leading expert on The Game (mind game), they don't hold much weight either (so improve the article, please). lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Haywood[edit]

borderline notable; WP:BLP1E Sceptre ^(talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Haywood is not just notable, but notable for two unrelated creations. His Porthemmet hoax was mentioned in many newspapers across the world (references), as well as the national BBC television news. His website LoseTheGame.com has initiated over 300,000 people into The Game and been mentioned in multiple publications by the Canadian Press. Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — Rabidfoxes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Some more references:
UK:

International:
- Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851285981
- Vox Gibraltar: http://www.vox.gi/Features/Fund_Raising_Balloons_6000Mile_Journey_Baffles_Met_Experts-05102.html
- New Zealand Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10466314

Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brief mention (i.e., trivial coverage) for the Porthemmet hoax doesn't cut it. Operating a non-notable website does not satisfy notability criteria either. (It's also worth mentioning that the website has been blacklisted here because of Jonty's repeat attempts to spam; Jonty himself has been blocked numerous times for spam and block evasion, and the website in question allows users to download a Firefox plugin for the purpose of vandalising Wikipedia). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Candian Press article about Jonty, his site and The Game was also published by a number of reliable sources such as:

Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty was mentioned for Porthemmet by almost every major UK newspaper throughout last summer, and was more recently mentioned in the West Briton last week: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/westbriton/Tourist-trap-sign-times/article-218733-detail/article.html
He's also been referenced for his unrelated creation, LoseTheGame.com, by a number of national Canadian newspapers. I don't think that this can really be described as a "brief mention" or "trivial coverage" and should satisfy Wikipedia's policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creator of a truly notable hoax--and with other significant intent involvent--and with sources to show it = notable. DGG (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator cites WP:BLP1E as the reason for deletion, however I count at least two separate events for which this figure is notable (three if you count the "Porthemmet" road sign event as a separate news event to the hoax site event, since it came a year later), all of which are well covered in reliable sources. As an aside, I do not believe it to be relevant (or appropriate) to bring up the personal reputation of the article's subject in a deletion debate (see WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT for reasons why). Some sentences in the article could probably use a little rewording to bring them up to Wikipedia standards though. I can also see covered in the sources more information about the subject which may improve the article if it is included (for example, the fact that the subject is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, etc.). In short, this article has room for improvement, but WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here and I really fail to see a valid reason for deletion. Wiw8 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Wiw8 is a recently-created account, whose 7th edit was a lengthy contribution to Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive, and has shown a particular interest in The Game and this article's subject, with this edit [1] in particular being interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user's history is quite interesting, with few non trivial edits bar this subject, but it has been registered for a few months. On balance, I personally decided to assume good faith and leave any judgement to the closer. Maybe in the interests of this not becoming personal, you might want to do the same. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, if you looked properly you'd see that my account has actually been registered for over 2 years. In this time I'd say I've gained a firm enough grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to comment constructively in deletion debates. I may not be a "power editor", not having a wealth of free time to spend editing Wikipedia, but I contribute in my own way however and whenever I can. The fact that I made a comment in an AFD on "the game" ages ago hardly makes it unusual that I should make the odd minor edit or comment on its talk page from time to time - it's on my watch list. I recognise several of the users taking part in this AFD as having been significantly involved in debates on the same issues in the past. In any case, making misleading comments about my editing history here doesn't contribute to this debate in any way, so perhaps we can end that here and go back to debating the notability of the subject. Cheers. Wiw8 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat exactly are the other things he's notable for? The website isn't notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half a million unique views, first page Google ranking of a search for "the game", national media coverage... what would it require for you to deem the site as notable? Rabidfoxes (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't count toward WP:WEB notability. The CTV coverage is quite trivial, consisting of a few sentences mentioning Haywood. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E, he is only notable for the beach hoax. The website is non-notable per WP:WEB, receiving only a single passing mention in one press article (all other links are reprints of the original Canadian Press story) whose main subject was the game, not the website, and uses owner provided facts about the site to boot. A Google of losethegame.com rather than generic search terms reveals plenty of web blog and forum chatter as you would expect, but no non-trivial coverage from third party sources. MickMacNee (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The beach hoax is notable and widely reported, and thus article-worthy, but notability does not inherit from the event to the person. The other website is not notable, and does not qualify as a source of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. I don't dispute the notability of the beach hoax, and it's a reasonable addition to the Emmet (Cornish) article. However, the notability of the hoax and the creator doesn't extend beyond that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does Wikinews comply with reliable source policies? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_manager_of_site_%27Lose_The_Game%27 Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I know of no such transferable policies between wikinews and wikipedia, so I can't think one has any bearing on the other. Personally, I would have thought their journalistic integrity rose above examples of such blatant free self-promotion - it reads more like a press release rather than a news story, but I know little of their activities to be honest so can't judge if that is an acceptable piece. I will drop a note to the journo that his work is being talked about here, he has a wikipedia account also. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since my editing history has now been nibbled at just because my opinion above was "keep" rather than (the much easier to choose) "delete", I feel the need to better explain the reasoning behind my opinion.

I don't think this debate should be about whether the "lose the game" website satisfies WP:N and WP:V, because this AFD is not for an article about the website. The aim of this AFD is to establish whether the subject itself satisfies the inclusion policies and guidelines. For the most part, the information in the article is well referenced and reliably sourced, so we are left with debating whether the subject satisfies WP:N / WP:BIO. The reason my opinion remains "keep" is that I don't read WP:BLP1E as saying that we should go through every event mentioned in the article and debate whether each one satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (if they did then we'd have separate articles on each event), but rather that we shouldn't have an article on an individual if their only mentions in reliable sources come from a single event. In my humble opinion, this doesn't appear to apply to this subject.

I certainly agree that the "lose the game" website is not sufficiently notable, nor is it well enough covered in reliable sources, to have its own Wikipedia article. However, I see the contribution to the notability of the subject in this context coming not from the hit statistics, google rankings or media mentions of the "lose the game" site he created, but from the fact that the reporters in question turned to the subject for primary information and advice regarding the "game" topic (a topic which itself has been deemed sufficiently notable for Wikipedia inclusion). Additionally we should consider whether the hoax beach website event is a separate event to the hoax road sign event, since the hoax road sign event is a separate news incident which was reported a year later. Again, reporters turned to the subject for their information on this topic. I'm not trying to suggest that the notability of the subject is a clear cut thing, or that it's not in need of some debate, but my point is that I think the debate goes beyond just outright saying the subject is/isn't notable.

Lastly; I know that Haywood's involvement with Wikipedia has annoyed a number of us in the past for various reasons (I personally find his vandalism plugin distasteful and pointless), but every Wikipedia guideline and policy I can find tells us that we should rise above personal disputes, as well as a human subject's Wikipedia editing history (see WP:BIO) when discussing articles about said subject. Wiw8 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2008 (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.