410:- I'm still struggling with what the metrics for notability are. When I started editing on WP I took a very conservative view of the policies and as a result viewed many articles as AfD material. Is Stephanie Shaver notable? Realistically, the answer is a flat out "no." The only reason I heard of her and ran across the WP article is because I read an anthology and when done with it I went through all of the author burbs and crossed checked them against WP and ISFDB had I not done the cross check I would not have taken note of Shaver at all. The x-check happened and as a result I updated her WP article, wondered why she even had an article, and forgot about it. More recently I've swung towards a more inclusive view where I'm viewing WP as a resource that should contain articles on subjects where it's possible people in a wide area would want to look something up about the subject. There are two fuzzy words; "possible" and "wide area." As an author she has had short stories published in two magazine and in 12 anthologies over a 19 year period. I don't know if this is typical in the game business or if
315:, the relevant tests are "widely cited by their peers", "a significant new concept, theory or technique", "a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", "work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." None of these appear to be satisfied. Have the stories or games been the subject of a book or multiple periodical articles or reviews? I think not. In fact the only game on which she is reported to be lead designer has not appeared yet.
715:. I thought about her stories being selected by notable anthologists but that does not count as it's not "Stephanie Shaver" being the subject of recognition but rather that her story got it. A notable anthologist can't confer notability on her anthologies, nor can the anthologies confer notability on the stories, nor can the stories confer notability on the authors... She works for the game company and so recognition by them is not independent. --
415:
read her stories, play a game she's involved with, or participate in one of the forums or conventions she's active in. When the AfD came up I took a look at the notability policies and a scan for available evidence. With a liberal/inclusive mindset she clearly passes. With a conservative mindset she clearly does not pass the notability tests. --
528:- is she notable in her field(s)? That is, has she won any awards of any sort? She's got books. She's got software. She's bound to have an article or two written about her. But given that her work is out there, what does anybody think of it - in terms of awards or recognition that she's more than just another author/programmer?
414:
is an exception but the company publicity credits the contributors to their games much like movie credits. She appears to be active in on line forums and conventions (both fantasy fiction and games) which also increases her exposure. Thus the "possible" is above zero and the areas would be people who
486:
fully supports that we can use
Stephanie Shaver's own web site and writings about herself as sources for for the bio part of this article. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources and so we don't know if what's already there is accurate. Her author bibliography has already been independently
310:
in general say "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Mere listings of what work a person has done or published are surely
701:
Has not either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant
228:
While the article is currently unsourced, looking past the first page of Google results (which are mostly this page, her own personal site, and a few blogs) for her name show quite a few sources that could be used for this article. She is also mentioned in a number of books on
561:- There's a lot of sources out there that cite her, but they provide only a weak case for her notability, not a compelling one. She wouldn't need much more to establish notability—a significant, documented contribution to even a single game would probably change my mind. —
168:
This article does not assert notability, nor give reliable sources from which notability might be inferred. The subject has written some stories, none of which seem notable, and worked on some games which do have articles, but this does not confer notability on her.
393:. However, being a prolific writer isn't a factor. Lead designer for Hero's Journey would probably satisfy notability for creative professions, providing it receives the required coverage. However, the main issue for me here is verifiability - independent refs?
276:
with the exception that Locus does not have an article dedicated to her. In terms of verifiability, ISFDB and Locus also link to the anthologies her work has appeared in. As a game designer she's been the subject of at least one dedicated independent coverage
195:
is an interview with the person. Since I don't know much about the subject, I'm not all that good at finding sources about her, but what I have found is enough to convince me that she is a reasonably well-known figure in the field of fantasy literature.
697:
Has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or
611:
I'm a verifiable published author and photographer (outside of
Knowledge (XXG)). There's more to notability than verifiability. A lot more. If all this person has is evidence they exist, then they are not notable. Awards would help.
487:
verified from RS. I believe her game stuff has been too. Those are the reasons for notability and so it's a matter of someone taking the refs dug up in this thread and using them in the article assuming the consensus is "keep." --
289:
on another web site. At minimum, she's been acknowledged as the lead designer for a game and as a result attracted notice. Lack of notability for someone's work nor lack of sources in an article are grounds for deletion.
372:. While I have no real stake in the issue (I did one minor edit on her page recently), I find the arguments for more compelling than those against. Plus I have a bias toward retaining articles when in doubt.
151:
120:
476:
133:
458:
as what I think about the article, but I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found and quickly.
430:
That's a wide paintbrush, there, as well as an incorrect statement in which I take offense. I consider myself fairly liberal (I do support
87:
82:
630:, too. But I've never been in two anthologies each which have been edited by two of the most notable names in speculative fiction today.--
542:
I'm of the opinion that if you get into an MZB or Lackey anthology -- multiple times, at that -- that's a good indication of notability.--
91:
17:
434:
and many of the staff), but I do support deletion of articles of subjects that do not meet the notability criteria as prescribed by
74:
597:
been made, where does it say that it needs to be compelling? After all, the policy is verifiability -- notability is a guideline.--
712:
708:
686:
673:
660:
307:
578:
681:
Has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
213:
per
Sjakkalle. Lead designer on a game is a significant role and the ISFDB shows this isn't just a random hobby writer. -
188:
740:
286:
36:
340:
320:
278:
192:
174:
447:
238:
389:- She seems to be a popular guest writer - in addition to those columns posted by Mark Kupper, she's written for
739:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
475:
political persuasion. Interpretation of WP policy is much like how people can read the 27 words comprising the
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
723:
639:
621:
606:
588:
551:
537:
520:
495:
462:
423:
402:
381:
364:
347:
324:
298:
242:
220:
205:
178:
161:
140:
56:
635:
602:
547:
516:
218:
333:
316:
170:
720:
492:
420:
398:
295:
234:
78:
482:
re: "I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found."
332:, if a cite or source can be found for the claim that she was the youngest member ever to join SFWA. --
312:
483:
572:
200:
654:
454:
in which actual people can potentially be damaged by the content possibly posted here. I am still
443:
631:
617:
598:
543:
533:
512:
459:
360:
214:
158:
137:
230:
264:(two entries as it's not determined yet which version of the author's name is canonical), and
259:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
273:
716:
627:
488:
416:
394:
291:
70:
62:
451:
435:
269:
265:
691:
Is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
566:
377:
262:
197:
251:
613:
529:
356:
282:
431:
50:
665:
Has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable.
108:
668:
Is not the subject "none-substantial" coverage from multiple independent sources.
678:
Has not received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
508:
411:
255:
479:
and come away with wildly different, and strong, beliefs as to what it means.
694:
Is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
373:
390:
233:
outside of her own novels, though they all seem to be passing mentions.
467:
I'm using conservative/liberal in their standard meaning and not the
448:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
733:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
507:- in addition to the sources mentioned above, she's been a
687:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
442:– that users exercise other alternatives (as listed in
115:
104:
100:
96:
593:Leaving aside that I think the case for notability
661:Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
187:. First she didn't just "work on some games", for
152:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
674:Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Any_biography
438:. Politics aside, I believe in the process as it
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
743:). No further edits should be made to this page.
134:list of video game related deletion discussions
268:. These sites all satisfy all the bullets in
8:
146:
446:) before considering the deletion route.
707:She qualifies for getting handled under
150:: This debate has been included in the
132:: This debate has been included in the
657:again and went down it point by point.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
450:, nor is it a haven for unsourced
24:
281:, was asked to write for part of
1:
452:biographies of living people
191:she was the lead designer.
760:
711:and now we are looking at
250:- As an author she passes
724:23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
640:21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
622:21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
607:21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
589:12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
552:21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
538:04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
521:20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
496:06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
463:09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
424:07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
403:20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
382:19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
365:02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
348:15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
325:11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
299:11:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
243:09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
221:09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
206:08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
179:03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
162:17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
141:17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
57:01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
736:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
313:creative professionals
306:, as originator. The
266:scifi-fantasy-info.com
308:guidelines for people
709:Failing all criteria
626:Technically, I'm a
509:guest at Dragon*Con
311:insufficient. For
440:should be intended
44:The result was
587:
317:Thompson Is Right
203:
171:Thompson Is Right
164:
155:
143:
751:
738:
628:published author
585:
584:
581:
575:
569:
562:
477:Second Amendment
345:
338:
330:Conditional Keep
254:for coverage in
235:Orbital Delegate
201:
156:
128:
118:
112:
94:
71:Stephanie Shaver
63:Stephanie Shaver
53:
34:
759:
758:
754:
753:
752:
750:
749:
748:
747:
741:deletion review
734:
579:
573:
567:
565:
564:
357:X MarX the Spot
341:
334:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
757:
755:
746:
745:
729:
728:
727:
726:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
692:
684:
683:
682:
679:
671:
670:
669:
666:
653:- I looked at
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
556:
555:
554:
523:
501:
500:
499:
498:
480:
427:
426:
405:
384:
367:
355:as nominated.
350:
327:
301:
245:
223:
208:
189:Hero's Journey
166:
165:
144:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
756:
744:
742:
737:
731:
730:
725:
722:
718:
714:
713:Special cases
710:
706:
700:
696:
693:
690:
689:
688:
685:
680:
677:
676:
675:
672:
667:
664:
663:
662:
659:
658:
656:
652:
649:
641:
637:
633:
632:SarekOfVulcan
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
599:SarekOfVulcan
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
576:
570:
568:Levi van Tine
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:SarekOfVulcan
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
513:SarekOfVulcan
510:
506:
503:
502:
497:
494:
490:
485:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
425:
422:
418:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
385:
383:
379:
375:
371:
368:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
339:
337:
331:
328:
326:
322:
318:
314:
309:
305:
302:
300:
297:
293:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
224:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
207:
204:
199:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
180:
176:
172:
163:
160:
153:
149:
145:
142:
139:
135:
131:
127:
126:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
735:
732:
650:
594:
563:
558:
525:
504:
472:
469:Conservative
468:
455:
439:
432:Barack Obama
407:
386:
369:
352:
342:
336:BlueSquadron
335:
329:
303:
283:this article
247:
231:Google Books
225:
210:
184:
167:
147:
129:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
717:Marc Kupper
559:Weak delete
489:Marc Kupper
417:Marc Kupper
412:Simutronics
395:Marasmusine
292:Marc Kupper
702:libraries.
484:WP:SELFPUB
655:WP:PEOPLE
444:WP:BEFORE
387:Undecided
279:interview
198:Sjakkalle
698:reviews.
614:Rklawton
530:Rklawton
526:Question
460:MuZemike
285:, and a
202:(Check!)
159:MuZemike
138:MuZemike
121:View log
473:Liberal
456:neutral
408:Comment
274:WP:NOBJ
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
651:Delete
436:policy
353:Delete
304:Delete
287:column
270:WP:GNG
116:delete
92:delete
391:GDMag
343:Raven
260:ISFDB
256:Locus
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
721:talk
636:talk
618:talk
603:talk
548:talk
534:talk
517:talk
505:Keep
493:talk
421:talk
399:talk
378:talk
370:Keep
361:talk
321:talk
296:talk
272:and
252:WP:N
248:Keep
239:talk
226:Keep
211:Keep
193:This
185:Keep
175:talk
148:Note
130:Note
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
595:has
511:.--
471:or
374:BPK
215:Mgm
638:)
620:)
605:)
577:–
550:)
536:)
519:)
401:)
380:)
363:)
323:)
290:--
258:,
241:)
177:)
154:.
136:.
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
719:|
634:(
616:(
601:(
583:)
580:c
574:t
571:(
546:(
532:(
515:(
491:|
419:|
397:(
376:(
359:(
319:(
294:|
237:(
217:|
173:(
157:—
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.