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, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)[edit]

This article is about a guy who wrote in videogames magazines about 10 years ago. These days he's an entirely unnotable freelance journalist who seems to struggle to get anything published at all. Many of the incidents described in the article are pretty irrelevant, and the sourcing and overall written style of the article is pretty poor. I believe the entry itself was first created by Campbell himself, otherwise it wouldn't exist at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs)16:26, 6 August 2007.

• Keep - You miserable bastards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.227.76 (talk • contribs). — 82.17.227.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Not notable. --81.178.249.75 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 81.178.249.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete not notable. --PEAR (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability is not temporary, so the fact that he's less successful now than he used to be is irrelevant. However, the lack of secondary sources and the general shabbiness of the article make it hard to make a case for keeping it. Iain99 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the article is in awful shape at the moment. In fact, I'd say it's one of the worst I've read. It is a bit aggrandising, and it does reek a bit of conflict of interest. But an article being a bad one is not a reason to delete. There is no doubt that this person has been notable. As Iain99 says, notability isn't temporary. So what if he isn't doing much nowadays? Neither is Margaret Thatcher. Right now, the article has no sources. But is it an article "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"? I'd say not. He's been interviewed quite a lot. So I say, keep it. Put a ((rewrite)) on it. Re-stub it if needs be. But to say that someone who wrote for many national magazines, and for teletext for numerous years isn't notable is ridiculous. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom He's no more or less notable than any other videogames journalist. His having had work published in national videogames magazines is not in itself something noteworthy, and he really doesn't meet any notability criteria at all. --Mayor mike haggar (talk) 12.06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)— Mayor mike haggar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Poorly written article for a non-notable individual. Mr. Scare 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a videogames journalist is not in itself especially noteworthy. There are thousands of people who have contributed to magazines over the years, it would be lunacy to suggest they should all have their own page. I would suggest anybody who knows his name would know who he was, and would not require a page like this anyway. Also, the article is clearly written by the subject himself and is little more than a one sided propaganda piece. Look at the section on copyright, and especially the section on "Cannon Fodder". I don't think offending a load of old soldiers is anything to be particularly proud of, as he seems to be. -- Henry Of Monmouth 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Henry Of Monmouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Because of course that's the entirety of the situation. "Offending a few soldiers". That's all that happened. Of course. Obviously keep it, it's a perspective on some of the golden age of gaming and the Cannon Fodder incidents was one of the first rumblings of an effect that now leads us to have adult games like Manhunt 2 completely banned because "well games are for kids aren't they". Duds 2k (logged out as 87.194.49.241) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, games are for kids, aren't they. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.92.104 (talk • contribs). — 82.17.92.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep These complaints appear to be entirely personally motivated. Very similar entries such as that for Julian Rignall have not been subjected to such requests. The claim that the subject created the entry himself is entirely unsubstantiated. As for the standard of the entry, I have now edited it to supply citations from various sources for most of the challenged items. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs). — 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment This entry has being flagged for deletion clearly as part of a vendetta by someone who is not a "fan" of the entry's subject. There's no rationale for deletion while other journalists from the era have unchallenged entries, and as such it should be recognised that this challenge is a personal grudge, and not something relevant to Wikipedia's qualifications for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botherer (talk • contribs). — Botherer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment You have absolutely no proof of that, and the article should be reviewed no differently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.66.131.125 (talk • contribs). — 79.66.131.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Not notable, and it's irrelevant to point out other instances of where another non-notable individual's article has not been AfDed. 81.178.249.168 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — 81.178.249.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Are we to assume, then, that every journalist, and by extension every magazine and newspaper, is to be deleted? Because this particular subject is unquestionably one of, if not the, most notable in his field, and if his entry is to be deleted then it's hard to see how a case can be made to keep ANY periodical publication. It would be a lot more convincing if any of the people arguing for deletion had also taken the simple steps to request the deletion of similar other entries, many of which are linked from this very article and are therefore easy to find. The justification for claiming this to be a specifically personal attack is equally easy to observe - for example, the highly offensive recent editing of the subject's name to "Stuart 'Raper' Campbell". From that and several other edits it is abundantly obvious that this request is malicious in nature, rather than concerned for the integrity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs).
• Comment Hello. I am Stuart Campbell, something which Wikipedia is welcome to verify via the email address supplied to create this account. I have no intention of debating my own "notability", but wish to absolutely deny the claim that I was in any way responsible for the creation of my entry here. I did not create it, did not request anyone else to create it, and have no knowledge of who did. This debate seems to me wholly motivated by personal animosity, and I do recognise some of the usernames of those involved as people who have previously shown hostility towards me on internet forums and the like, but the issue is clearly for Wikipedia to decide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk • contribs). — Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Claiming the AfD is some sort of vendetta against Campbell is just as baseless as the accusations that Campbell wrote the article himself, and is irrelevant in any case. Whether or not the article should remain, rests entirely on the notability of the subject - not on the motivations of whoever nominated it for deletion. 81.178.249.168 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)— 81.178.249.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - I wanted to find something out about Cannon Fodder 2, and I did. So, for me at least, it's useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.136.138 (talk • contribs).
• Keep - He's clearly notable in his field and has amassed lots of credits for a host of notable UK publications, and his work with FairPlay is also pretty notable. I don't think it's correct to say the "he wrote it himself" claims are irrelevant - despite being proved false, those claims are the only justification for deletion provided by some of those voting "Delete" above, and this should probably be taken into account. Also, there are quite a few articles which reference him by name and link back here. Finally, it's been here for a long time without anyone raising the issue before, which does suggest that this nomination may not have been done in good faith. Fosse8 10:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, on further investigation of this article's What Links Here page, there are some very interesting comments on the nomination for Web Boxing League - [1] - where an article by Campbell is suggested as something which could be an example of a sufficient supporting source. It seems very inconsistent if Campbell having written about something affords it notability, but the article about Campbell himself is to be deleted. Fosse8 11:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article requires further cleanup, but as a former editor of a national magazine he has notability within his field, and the article is now somewhat better sourced than it was. Iain99 11:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable person. This AfD is clearly proposed by person(s) with a grudge, evidenced by the amount of anon "Delete" nominations (that have made no other edits I notice). --The internet is serious business 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about the anon keep nominations? Which are most likely from Stuart's own forum [2]. 81.178.249.168 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yet another entirely groundless, unsupported allegation. Is there any evidence whatsoever for this claim? The link provided shows nobody either being asked to edit the entry, or claiming to have done so.83.67.217.135 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even ignoring his video game writing surely the creation of the Fairplay campaign which lead to a change in the law makes Stuart Campbell notable. 213.235.43.217 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) CD[reply]
• Comment It's becoming increasingly obvious that the edits made to the article by the user with IP 81.178.249.168 are malicious in nature. Their most recent edit removed a number of clearly factual pieces of information (such as the chart placings of two videogames) under the claim that they were "POV". Such things are clearly anything but "points of view", and are instead abundantly-documented, empirically verifiable and relevant facts, since the chart success of games created by a person is of clear significance when determining that person's "notability".83.67.217.135 11:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment In the context they were in, they were totally superfluous and made the article read like Campbell's promotional material (or rather, even moreso than it currently does). All those that have been linked here from Stuart's forum should be aware of WP:CoI. 81.178.249.168 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So should those who came here on behalf of the nom from forums - Just because you're not from his site doesn't mean you lack a conflict of interest in the matter. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability, "notability is not temporary". -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Is there a mechanism by which the unjustifiable and repeated vandalism of this entry can be stopped pending Wikipedia's decision? The un-named complainant here repeatedly removes verifiable facts which are clearly pertinent with regard to the subject's notability, from transparently personal motives.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs).
  • If you feel the page should be protected, see WP:RFPP. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page made my head spin :( 83.67.217.135 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Responded at user's talk page. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wording such as "extremely popular" aren't verifiable facts, they're peacock terms, used to push your POV. It's also just poor writing. That is why your edits are being reverted. 81.178.249.168 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, 81., but I feel I have to agree with 83.67.217.135 and lament the fact that semi-protection would have been counterproductive due to the IPs working here. Besides, it's been pointed out that you seem to have an exclusivity to this article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)-Text redacted by Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)}[reply]
          • It's called a dynamic IP. I've been editing Wikipedia for over four years. 81.178.249.168 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then perhaps it's time you registered an account. 83.67.217.135 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • He doesn't have to, 83. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then accept my apologies. Redacted the last sentence above.
• Keep - article asserts notability with independent mentions. Admin: Notice the abundance of SPAs in this AfD ;) Giggy ^Talk 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aside from the single-purposes trying to prove a point, I note that there are several external links scattered throughout the text of the article that would need to be made into references via the <ref> tag. Further, if notability was temporary, as nom suggests, then why the heck do we have articles on people who would've stopped being notable long ago?-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is not temporary. Andre (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I believe the subject passes one or two points of WP:BIO (under 'creative professionals'); his involvement with Amiga Power, for example. Has this AfD been pointed to from a forum, or something? That's an awful lot of unsigns and IPs up there. Marasmusine 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Forum is likely...hence the usage of ((not a ballot)), and my subtle wink to an admin! By the way, this has also been noted at WT:VG. Giggy ^Talk 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reasons given for deletion by the nominator have all been rebutted here. Notability is not temporary, quality of an article is not a reason for deletion, the article wasn't written by Campbell himself, etc. UnaLaguna 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteYes, notability is forever, that point has been made again and again and again. But is the subject actually notable? From the article it seems that he's mainly notable for giving out harsh review scores, which in itself is hardly worthy. While he has written for a large number of publications, so have a large number of other freelance journos, why does any of this make him notable? It also seems odd that he is mentioned as having worked with the fairplay campaign, which doesn't have an entry itself. If it is to stay, then it probably needs some cleanup. Whilst the references have been improved, it still reads as much like a resumé than an encyclopedia entry. And surely direct quotes from his own forum don't have a place here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.185.248 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment Most people who have voted keep surely agree that the article is in need of some cleanup. May I also take this chance to ask why your recent edits seem to show some kind of grudge against Campbell, removing mention of him in articles [3] [4], and referring to him as a "noted murderer" [5]? Such edits probably won't help bring the closing admins to see your deletion rationale as neutral. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seriously, this is a bit silly. Not many games magazine editors have managed to enrage the national press as Campbell did with the Cannon Fodder poppy thing and its resultant front page headlines. That's notable in itself. He's probably the single best known games journalist in Britain in the last 20 years. Miremare 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The reason for nomination is as logic as deleting Babe Ruth because "he was a guy that hit homeruns eighty years ago." - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears to be a somewhat notable game designer/writer. --Pixelface 09:10, 10 August 2007 (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.