Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasmus Højengaard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Shirahadasha (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
[edit] Rasmus Højengaard
- – (View log)
Delete or Possible Merge to the Hitman (series). While he's the director of a notable video game series, I didn't even learn who he was until I did actual research. Basically, no notability. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, but the fact remains that I only discovered who this individual was when I found interviews of his that weren't even about him, and if notability is asserted only by mere association with one notable element, then I know plenty of deleted articles that shouldn't have been deleted, probably 99% of the ones that weren't blatant crap or lies. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepWell isn't that usually the case with anything? Either you know it or you will get to know it by doing research? ♣ 90.184.154.200 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 90.184.154.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I didn't have to google, and I never heard of him before either. I did go to this site called Wikipedia, however, and read the article and all the citations that were actually about him and not just his games ;) Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can go one the Internet and find tons of sources about someone. That doesn't make him notable. And most, if not all, of the sources aren't even about him. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- But as I stated, the articles ARE about him, interviews with him. WP:V says the article must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of citations is a reason to improve, not delete. In this case, the references are several, in place and valid. Pharmboy (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- To me, that merits a merge, not an article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But as I stated, the articles ARE about him, interviews with him. WP:V says the article must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of citations is a reason to improve, not delete. In this case, the references are several, in place and valid. Pharmboy (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Nomination is a poor argument. The article is referenced, but to primary sources and interviews, which are generally not by themselves sufficient to show notability. On the other hand he does have a strong-ish CV. I'd like to see better sources, but I couldn't find any in Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's my point. I'll admit, I worded my argument poorly, but the fact remains that this person is not notable. I don't know anything about Joe Glazer, but when research is done (outside of Wikipedia, mind you) I learn that he is a folksinger and historian of folksongs who devoted his life to labor unions. I found this info through Google, and I found substantially less information about Rasmus doing a similar search. I know Google hits mean shit, but come on. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did similar research and found out that Rasmus Højengaard designed an online investment platform to help further entrepreneurship in development countries, by merging game philosophy with micro financing. The platform is called www.myc4.com and has a very original take on "charity". That's notable I believe? Ussphilips (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The subject itself fails WP:N. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well - I added it to the article anyways. Thought it was interesting. Ussphilips (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The subject itself fails WP:N. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did similar research and found out that Rasmus Højengaard designed an online investment platform to help further entrepreneurship in development countries, by merging game philosophy with micro financing. The platform is called www.myc4.com and has a very original take on "charity". That's notable I believe? Ussphilips (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's my point. I'll admit, I worded my argument poorly, but the fact remains that this person is not notable. I don't know anything about Joe Glazer, but when research is done (outside of Wikipedia, mind you) I learn that he is a folksinger and historian of folksongs who devoted his life to labor unions. I found this info through Google, and I found substantially less information about Rasmus doing a similar search. I know Google hits mean shit, but come on. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hitman Blood Money is an exceptionally good game and I believe that the person who was behind it deserves a worthy mention. Definately a keep. (this wasn't supposed to be a 2nd vote). 90.184.154.200 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.154.200 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 90.184.154.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Popularity isn't notability. I'm sure the inventor of pork skins feels the same way, but just because his product is popular doesn't mean he can have his own article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I feel I have to comment on that one. On that note you say that a movie director is not worth an article either or? What differentiates good games, films and music from pork skins, is the artistic element of the product, yes? Ussphilips (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a different story if there was sufficient press coverage over the subject and if the subject had done multiple sucessful games outside of the series or something to that effect. There is press coverage and reliable secondary sources for movie directors. And artistic element has nothing to do with notability. I can find artistic value in pile of dog crap; that doesn't mean an article is gonna be made on it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can find several articles on musicians for example that are here but on whom you can basically only find info, if you go to their instrument related web pages. Studio drummers to mention an example. What makes a semi famous rock drummer notable? Not much in my oppinion...90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean crap. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, but that doesn't render my argument irrelevant. It just turns your's very subjective.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, it does, as far as saying other articles exist goes. These other articles can get deleted just like any other article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but that's where I think you and I fundamentally disagree (which could make me a very bad boy within the world of WP, I admit), but I don't think that the content of WP should be entirely decided by technicalities and systematic boundries.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But anyways(!) - it's not like it matters to me that much. I just found an article that I found interesting that I noticed was up for deletion and I felt a little annoyed by it :-). Do what you gotta do men, my bag or arguments is empty.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but that's where I think you and I fundamentally disagree (which could make me a very bad boy within the world of WP, I admit), but I don't think that the content of WP should be entirely decided by technicalities and systematic boundries.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, it does, as far as saying other articles exist goes. These other articles can get deleted just like any other article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, but that doesn't render my argument irrelevant. It just turns your's very subjective.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean crap. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can find several articles on musicians for example that are here but on whom you can basically only find info, if you go to their instrument related web pages. Studio drummers to mention an example. What makes a semi famous rock drummer notable? Not much in my oppinion...90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but if you can also find commercial value in a pile of crap you definitely got yourself an article ;-). 90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a different story if there was sufficient press coverage over the subject and if the subject had done multiple sucessful games outside of the series or something to that effect. There is press coverage and reliable secondary sources for movie directors. And artistic element has nothing to do with notability. I can find artistic value in pile of dog crap; that doesn't mean an article is gonna be made on it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I feel I have to comment on that one. On that note you say that a movie director is not worth an article either or? What differentiates good games, films and music from pork skins, is the artistic element of the product, yes? Ussphilips (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Popularity isn't notability. I'm sure the inventor of pork skins feels the same way, but just because his product is popular doesn't mean he can have his own article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for submitting it was the same as the above argument. Ussphilips (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Ussphillips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. No notability is shown. Being a director of one notable video game isn't enough for an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
Note that IP 90.184.154.200 has voted twice. I don't know if this is just an misunderstanding of AfDs or if this was an attempt to create more keep votes. If it's the latter, I feel his votes should be dismissed.♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- Ok. It's been cleared up. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's notable enough to keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.3.244 (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 91.122.3.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep First of all I dont think it's quantity that makes something notable. Second I think that a person who directs a game or a movie puts some of his or her "soul" into that product. That by definition makes the person behind it interesting. Pepsyk (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Pepsyk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Interesting how a new user such as yourself took interest in an AfD for his or her first 2 edits... very interesting..... ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny how you seem to just want to find a way to nullify the other comments. Cheer up dude :-). I think your main arguments seem to derive from the importance of quantity, which to me seems a little askew. But that might just be me?90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is following my intuition and supporting that decision; the fact remains that this user, who is supposedly "new," voted in an AfD for their first edit. I didn't even know what an AfD was when I began to edit. Perhaps you should better support your argument instead and preventing me from nullifying comments. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But my dear friend, I am. I feel towards this article as I feel towards seeing a movie that I like, and when it's over I wanna know who made it, because I didn't expect the movie to be as good as it was. That's how I felt towards the game when I played it. I wanted to know who was behind it, because I felt it had a different "vibe" than the previous games. And BEHOLD - it was another Game Director! And BEHOLD I read it here - on WP(!), and then saw at the same time that you wanted to delete the article, and I decided to join the debate...90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and if it will make people feel better, I'd be happy to make an account to give my arguments some extra "punch". All in good spirit :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Textbook example of WP:ILIKEIT like I stated below. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, my arguments might not be within the boundries of a certified WP argument, but it's nonetheless how I feel towards it. And it's the quality and originality of the content (not that I like it) that makes me wanna go "behind the scenes" and pursue the inclusion of the article.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Textbook example of WP:ILIKEIT like I stated below. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and if it will make people feel better, I'd be happy to make an account to give my arguments some extra "punch". All in good spirit :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But my dear friend, I am. I feel towards this article as I feel towards seeing a movie that I like, and when it's over I wanna know who made it, because I didn't expect the movie to be as good as it was. That's how I felt towards the game when I played it. I wanted to know who was behind it, because I felt it had a different "vibe" than the previous games. And BEHOLD - it was another Game Director! And BEHOLD I read it here - on WP(!), and then saw at the same time that you wanted to delete the article, and I decided to join the debate...90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is following my intuition and supporting that decision; the fact remains that this user, who is supposedly "new," voted in an AfD for their first edit. I didn't even know what an AfD was when I began to edit. Perhaps you should better support your argument instead and preventing me from nullifying comments. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny how you seem to just want to find a way to nullify the other comments. Cheer up dude :-). I think your main arguments seem to derive from the importance of quantity, which to me seems a little askew. But that might just be me?90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting how a new user such as yourself took interest in an AfD for his or her first 2 edits... very interesting..... ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm seeing a lot of "I thinks" and WP:ILIKEIT instead of genuine arguments. None of the "Keep" votes have validly supported their viewpoint. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment At this time, there are 8 votes and 14 comments by the
articleAFD creator. Seems a bit out of whack and like a bludgening of the AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- What do you mean with "bludgening" Pharmboy?90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reply From the Urban Dictionary: Bludgen - To beat powerfully with force with an object of great mass. Pharmboy (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Oh, I know what it means thank you - I meant to ask how you used it? What was receiving the beating? The concept of AFD or the actual article? Thanks :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just who exactly are you referring to? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are the only one with that many comment entries, asking seems kind of pointless and begging for argument, which I will not oblige you with. It isn't necessary (or desirable) to debate every person who offers an opinion here. Pharmboy (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I did so mainly because of the votes that appeared canvassed and by an "editor" who only has 2 edits, both of which are in this AfD. I've seen things like this happen before and I don't want them to happen again when I can help it. I'll admit, I've posted a large amount of comments, but at the same time, these comments were replied to which prompted me to defend my viewpoint. I honestly didn't expect myself to post so many comments. I just wanted to do my best to show how, in my opinion, how some of the "keep" votes were flawed. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, my first submission to WP and I feel like I've removed the lowest can in a huge can-pyramid in a supermarket. How it's possible to be so rule-bound is beyond me and defies the purpose of WP to some extent (in my oppinion). Remove the sodding article if it's such a big deal. I just believe it deserves to be there for all the reasons that dear Mr. Anonymous, Pharmboy and myself put on the table :-). This is a typical example of what happens to a "free for all" project that starts being governed. It ends up being OVER-governed... A little sad if you ask me. Ussphilips (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You make it seem like the article is being deleted already; nothing is final yet. Like I said, I'm doing what I feel is right in my own opinion, which I feel is partly what Wikipedia is about. It's not like my viewpoint is the best or correct. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to make it personal in any way, because you are of course entitled to your opinion. But reading through the debate, I sense an almost hostile approach when you argue against people who don't share your opinion, and that takes the fun out of fun and replaces it with poppycock. That said, I can see your points of view and understand them. I just don't think they weigh out the countering arguments. Dude, have a nice day/night wherever you're from and let's venture on with a smile on our small chubby faces!Ussphilips (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I hear you. It does look lik that and I really didn't intend for it to appear that way. Part of it stems from this incident I had a long time ago with a handful of users and it was honestly the most extreme and unnecessary thing I've seen in my entire life and it revolved around sockpuppeting, which now aggravates the crap out of me. It's just a bit of a hotbutton for me, especially when I see "new" users doing what the above user did. I apologize if it seemed like I was biting people's heads off. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to make it personal in any way, because you are of course entitled to your opinion. But reading through the debate, I sense an almost hostile approach when you argue against people who don't share your opinion, and that takes the fun out of fun and replaces it with poppycock. That said, I can see your points of view and understand them. I just don't think they weigh out the countering arguments. Dude, have a nice day/night wherever you're from and let's venture on with a smile on our small chubby faces!Ussphilips (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You make it seem like the article is being deleted already; nothing is final yet. Like I said, I'm doing what I feel is right in my own opinion, which I feel is partly what Wikipedia is about. It's not like my viewpoint is the best or correct. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, my first submission to WP and I feel like I've removed the lowest can in a huge can-pyramid in a supermarket. How it's possible to be so rule-bound is beyond me and defies the purpose of WP to some extent (in my oppinion). Remove the sodding article if it's such a big deal. I just believe it deserves to be there for all the reasons that dear Mr. Anonymous, Pharmboy and myself put on the table :-). This is a typical example of what happens to a "free for all" project that starts being governed. It ends up being OVER-governed... A little sad if you ask me. Ussphilips (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I did so mainly because of the votes that appeared canvassed and by an "editor" who only has 2 edits, both of which are in this AfD. I've seen things like this happen before and I don't want them to happen again when I can help it. I'll admit, I've posted a large amount of comments, but at the same time, these comments were replied to which prompted me to defend my viewpoint. I honestly didn't expect myself to post so many comments. I just wanted to do my best to show how, in my opinion, how some of the "keep" votes were flawed. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are the only one with that many comment entries, asking seems kind of pointless and begging for argument, which I will not oblige you with. It isn't necessary (or desirable) to debate every person who offers an opinion here. Pharmboy (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: "Game director of the critically acclaimed video game Hitman Blood Money" passes my notability bar, is there a written guide to establish this without subjectivity? If the nominator "didn't even learn who he was" until they researched it, it sounds like a case for article improvement. Keep for improvement.--Alf melmac 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I think he meets notability, and the sources are bent towards him. matt91486 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
