Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Price (games programmer)

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 delete. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Price (games programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Nominated for deletion under WP:BLP1E, per request by 137.43.188.78 (talk) Ludwigs2 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator, thanks to Ludwigs2 for nominating for me. The only RS that I can find about this is about a single issue re the plagiarism. Seems like a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. 93.107.70.26 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cause it is a game designer,he created a game he should have an article.!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.49.191 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - That's not a valid reason, that's just a desciption of the person. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on the game, I would think. But in this case, I agree. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I merely said that because the IP failed to expand their stance beyond "a game". Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Violates WP:BLP1E Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't sign my comments sinebot will do it,he is a great hacker,and like Tailsman67 told me,you are not screwing this page up like you did The Nazo Unleashed trilogy,that was a good movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.49.191 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2011‎
  • Comment The above IP has claimed "Keep" twice now, for the record. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability. Stormbay (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Nom - only notable for one (not very notable) event. Let the poor guy get on with his life.--Ludwigs2 02:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete – As well as off my inability to find anything on him, that just because you create a video game doesn't mean you get your own separate article. However, the larger problem is the rather blaring BLP concerns; the article is nothing but about a rather insignificant incident back in the 1980s in which some people are using Wikipedia to continue to bash on the person responsible. –MuZemike 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concur with MuZemike, this article is a BLP mess and even if notability were established (which I don't think it has been at present, considering both WP:N and WP:BLP1E) a blank page would be a better starting point than the article as it presently stands. EdChem (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see clear notability here, and - as per BLP1E - we're in no position to have this article if we can't source it properly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep He is important,he did something notable. See below
  • Comment - Above IP's argument is not only invalid, as it doesn't describe any sort of reasoning why, but is suspected to be a sock puppet of the IP above who tried to claim "keep" twice earlier in the discussion. (Not just because of this comment, but because of majority of their other edits.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also reverts even after warnings. Calabe1992 22:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm not that guy,you have no proof

1. Yes you are; don't lie to us.
2. He did not do anything remotely notable; you only want the article kept so that you can continue your harassment campaign against Price.

–MuZemike 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have no proof;hunches are bunches of bs.
2. This had an article that was deleted 10 years ago.

• It doesn't matter who you are, you still haven't given a good reason to keep the album. You need to take a different approach, like providing reliable sources or pointing to notability guideline that it passes to describe why it is a notable article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Nearly a dozen IPs editing exactly the same way quacks pretty loudly. Striking this vote as editor has already voted once using IP 98.71.49.191. --McDoobAU93 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is a limited amount of independent information on the person, but as noted above it's for a single thing. --McDoobAU93 18:38, 13 December 2011 (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.