220:
interviewed for scores of magazines and even appeared on a few TV shows for my involvement in designing computer games, but other than a couple book signings, I didn't get any publicity for the book. All of the games were at one time or another a number-one selling game, and in the case of
Dungeon Master, a seminal work in the history of computer games; the book, alas, set no sales records, and while well-received, would not stand out in a collection of books on designing computer games. Anyway, I'm not here to lobby as I'd rather this is decided on its own merits without regard to the fact that I happen to be active on Knowledge (XXG), but it is just kind of curious that nobody has apparently done the type of research that I see on other bio AfDs. –
233:), is that when you read a book you are prominently and conscpicuously presented with the author's name. Book in hand, it's logical to wonder "who is this author?" When you play a video game, you generally do not see the names of creators; I guess some have some "credits key-combo" to reveal some screen of this information, and maybe it's in small print in the manual. A million-selling video game deserves its own article, but its creators are semi-anonymous (though I suppose there are special industry forums where game developers are discussed, given awards, etc). Likewise, my "Black-and-Decker 8" Flat-Head Screwdriver" probably sold 50 million units, and
248:
do otherwise. I will only mention that the computer game industry is much more like the movie industry than the tool industry, and similar to the movie industry some people are interested in who makes the movies and some people just watch the movies. (For that matter, some people care who wrote the book and some people just read the books.) Lulu, if you want to discuss any of these issues with me further, please use my talk page. –
161:
The subject of this article apparently has the incorrect belief that my nomination of this article on AfD has something to do with an editing disagreement he and I may have had on an unrelated topic. The merit of an article on Doug Bell is completely unrelated to any editing either he or I may do on
247:
Well, I don't want to be drawn into responding on this page as I don't think my participation here is appropriate and in my opinion I've already been drawn into crossing a line I'd rather not have, so I intend to make this my last addition to this page unless there is some exceedingly good reason to
219:
series nearly 20 years after the game was first released, but as far as I know, none devoted to the book. There was, and to a small degree still is, a major cult following of the game that lasted well past its market dominance (and again, no cult following for the book ever materialized). I was
261:
sometimes marvel at how clever some little bit of industrial design is (or at how stupidly it was done), and sort of wonder who was behind it). But there seems to be a prominent notability distinction among where authorship is prominently assigned and where it is not. For example, someone
237:
designed it (there's probably a lot that goes into choosing and testing materials and processes, quite likely patents involved). But this person who developed my screwdriver doesn't get an article on that basis (though s/he may well get industry-specific awards, reputation, etc).
363:. I understand the issue that he's written the article himself, which is generally discouraged, but I find it laudable that he has written a concise and neutral piece about himself, as opposed to some other people who write ludicrous self-aggrandizement here.
214:
several million units—back when a million units was almost unheard of—so as you can see, there would be a somewhat larger exposure to the games than the book. There are still (amazing to me) quite a few active fan/clone/derivitive sites devoted to the
181:, the book authorship is an explicit factor recommended in consideration of notability. Job titles as software developer or project lead are not explicitly considered there, though I think someone like
71:
as broad dogma). His 1998 book seems to bring it to borderline notability, but unless he has other publications, I think it falls below the threshold. The various programming jobs seem non-notable.
89:
It was straight dual authorship (we each wrote half the chapters), but somebody has to be listed first. Wayne was the initial contact point with the
Dummies people, so he got to be listed first. –
185:
should certainly be considered notable even if he had nothing other than his software development projects (which is still the main focus of his article). While the biography subject may be
294:
Not every published author deserves a wikipedia page. Same goes for game developers. I don't see anything notable about this person. He played a part in designing some games....so what? --
84:
is Amazon.com rank 809,649 (quite possibly higher closer to publication). Doug Bell is second listed author, so I presume Wayne Holder is the primary author. It appears to be in print.
85:
67:. I am nominating the article, but only find it a weak delete. The article is a slight vanity piece, given its creation by the subject (but anyone who knows me knows I don't take
124:
is doing a lot of defending of an article that's about himself, that he started himself. That just seems to me the definition of a vanity article. Changing vote to weak delete.
210:, but rather what I am most well known for. The book sold somewhere between 12,000 to 15,000 copies in the U.S. and the games had combined sales in over a dozen countries of
166:
issue in perspective: a subject's notability is not affected by whether they contributed to their (auto)biography; there is merely a heightened concern that the article meet
257:
The analogies among industries Doug Bell makes might be roughly correct (or might not be). I'm not part of either industry, nor part of e.g. the hand tool industry. I
152:
interesting. BTW, I would have expanded the article (and will if so requested), but I didn't want it to be a vanity piece and would rather that someone else do it. –
262:
copy-edited, and someone else bound/printed Doug's book. The book would not exist without those steps either; yet those people are not judged notable by
359:
I'm not in favor of having articles of everybody associated with creating some game, but a lead developer of four certainly clears the bar by my book.
189:
of things other than book authorship, that does not necessarily mean that readers find those things most notable. That said, as written, I see no
148:
The book has little to do with my notoriety—base your vote on the games where I was the principle developer. Also, you might find my comment at
345:. The book he co-authored isn't the real issue. He played an important role in a classic video game series, makes it more than worthwhile. -
149:
17:
271:
239:
198:
72:
392:
36:
391:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
107:. He wrote a book- Someone may want to know more about this author. Not as notable as others, but I'd keep it.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
350:
318:
306:
Involved with some classic (and notable) games, book published; maybe borderline, but good enough for me.
346:
377:
354:
337:
321:
298:
274:
252:
242:
224:
201:
156:
138:
111:
93:
75:
48:
108:
367:
266:. I can't really say what "some people are interested in", but try to follow the guidelines in
329:. Notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). And it's not like his self-authored article links to his
313:
308:
295:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
190:
167:
163:
68:
334:
267:
263:
230:
178:
171:
206:
For what it's worth, pointing people to the games I developed has nothing to do with what
182:
249:
221:
216:
153:
121:
90:
364:
135:
150:
User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters#Regarding Ward
Churchill, please review WP:NPOV
60:
Borderline notable computer programmer and book author. Possible vanity concern.
45:
194:
54:
370:
229:
The difference, to my mind (and probably in the mind of the writers of
385:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
197:
article, only a possible notability theshold concern.
44:
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete.
162:
Knowledge (XXG); moreover, I urge voters to put the
134:He was the lead programmer for four projects too.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
395:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
177:Looking at notability guidelines at
24:
82:Java Game Programming for Dummies
1:
378:12:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
355:09:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
338:20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
322:08:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
299:23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
275:02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
253:01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
243:18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
225:10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
202:23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
157:23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
139:21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
112:20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
94:10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
76:20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
49:14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
270:in determining notability.
412:
179:WP:BIO#People still alive
388:Please do not modify it.
272:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
240:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
199:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
73:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
32:Please do not modify it.
174:in such cases (IMNSHO).
208:I am most proud of
193:concern with the
403:
390:
375:
316:
311:
34:
411:
410:
406:
405:
404:
402:
401:
400:
399:
393:deletion review
386:
372:
333:or anything. -
314:
309:
183:Andrew Tridgell
122:User: Doug Bell
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
409:
407:
398:
397:
381:
380:
357:
340:
324:
301:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
217:Dungeon Master
175:
142:
141:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
109:Colby Peterson
101:
100:
99:
98:
97:
96:
57:
52:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
408:
396:
394:
389:
383:
382:
379:
376:
369:
366:
362:
358:
356:
352:
348:
344:
341:
339:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
320:
319:
317:
312:
305:
302:
300:
297:
293:
290:
289:
276:
273:
269:
265:
260:
256:
255:
254:
251:
246:
245:
244:
241:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
223:
218:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
169:
165:
160:
159:
158:
155:
151:
147:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
123:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
106:
103:
102:
95:
92:
88:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
77:
74:
70:
66:
63:
62:
61:
56:
53:
51:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
387:
384:
360:
342:
330:
326:
307:
303:
296:Pierremenard
291:
258:
234:
211:
207:
186:
145:
131:
118:
104:
81:
64:
59:
43:
31:
28:
335:Outerlimits
105:Weak delete
65:Weak delete
187:most proud
80:Followup:
347:dharmabum
250:Doug Bell
222:Doug Bell
195:Doug Bell
154:Doug Bell
91:Doug Bell
55:Doug Bell
315:itsJamie
235:somebody
212:a couple
146:Comment.
191:WP:NPOV
168:WP:NPOV
164:WP:AUTO
119:Comment
69:WP:AUTO
368:adiant
331:resumé
292:Delete
268:WP:BIO
264:WP:BIO
231:WP:BIO
172:WP:NOR
46:Ifnord
374:|<
373:: -->
16:<
361:Keep
351:talk
343:Keep
327:Keep
310:OhNo
304:Keep
170:and
136:Ruby
132:Keep
353:)
259:do
371:_
365:R
349:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.