Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Heinsoo

:{{la|Rob Heinsoo}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Rob Heinsoo}})

prod removed, another editor has since expressed a concern of no notability. only external links and no references. working on designing a game does not establish notability any more then being the crew on a movie. no claim of PERSONAL notability Tracer9999 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable designer and author of best-selling works such as D&D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - per lack of independent, verifiable, and reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete his main contribution is in producing a 4th edition of a highly notable game. The changes to this game don't seem to have been particular notable with respect to the person described as streamlining the game. Even his wizards profile doesn't seem to add anything to suggest notability. [http://www.wizards.com/forgottenrealms/FR_Bios_RobH.asp]. His addition to 96 page books seem marginal. I think this is not a case of an under referenced RPG article,Tetron76 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:The Wizards profile you reference is dated 2000 -- his 4th edition work dates from 2007 onwards, so I think we can conclude that the profile is out of date. While I can't find a current staff bio on the Wizards site, consider this article [http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20081010], which states "Rob Heinsoo led the design of the 4th Edition D&D Roleplaying Game and currently serves as the Lead Designer for Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D." Obviously, that's not an original separate source, but I'd hate to see decisions made based on out of date information. Thanlis (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

::Just to clarify I was not making my decision based on the profile not mentioning the D&D 4th edition but following up on all the information. Even using a google cached interview from the wizards site (which would be a primary source) and non-RS, there is little mention to support notability beyond that he worked for wizards and was good at his job. I could not find RS to support he met WP:BLP.Tetron76 (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm confused by your reference to WP:BLP -- help a newbie out? My understanding is that WP:BLP addresses the requirements for content added to a biographical article; it seems meaningless to refer to a person as not meeting those requirements. In any case, I'm interested in your comments on the further references that I found, and perhaps the references that Leadwind has added to Heinsoo's page -- some of them may well be unacceptable, and if you tell me which ones those are I can refine my approach. Thanlis (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Might not have been the best tag to point to I am new to a lot of this too, but from my reading there is merely a stronger focus on ensuring verifiability on a living persons biography. What I could not find is the sources from non-blogs explicitly describing him as important (i.e. it should not require the reader to draw conclusions or articles in something such as newspaper where he is the focus not just a passing reference.Tetron76 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - a brief search in a newspaper article database [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Heinsoo&action=historysubmit&diff=418684953&oldid=418464044 turned up two hits] indicating how the books he worked on have been successful; I don't doubt that more could be found with a bit more dilligence. Although the article does not reflect it, Heinsoo had more of a role with D&D than just a lead designer of the game's 4th edition (debut 2008), but that he has been involved for over 10 years and was also involved in the game's 3rd edition (debut 2000) and [http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=279 a few products since then]. This is exactly a case of an under-referenced bio article. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:The problem is when you look at sources such as thoe is they contribute to the notability of the book but not the author. When you look at [http://pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=575] credits and he is one of four designers. Clearly it would require original research to realise that this would meet wikipedia notability. If author standards are used then clearly much more subtantial sources are needed or an award.Tetron76 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• There appears to be an interview solely with him in this publication [http://books.google.com/books?id=oADsAAAAMAAJ&q=Rob+Heinsoo&dq=Rob+Heinsoo&hl=en&ei=lpd9Taf2K4TxrAGJkMzsBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgU] but I can't tell for certain. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:Why do you suspect it is an interview and not a book review I could only see top of the page which has the words D&D?Tetron76 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

::A snipit view from Google indicated it was an interview with him. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:BIO calls for the subject to have created or played a major role in "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." D&D as a whole is such a body of work. Rob Heinsoo was the lead designer of 4th edition, which is analogous to directing a movie rather than simply being a crew member. 4e incorporates a large number of changes, as documented on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons] and in reviews [http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/06/dungeons-dragon/][http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776]. I'd agree that Heinsoo doesn't meet the notability standard for, say, his work on the third edition Forgotten Realms book (which Tetron76 refers to above), but when you consider his 4th edition work the picture is rather different. Thanlis (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

: And while I'm at it -- he has one Origins Award win [http://web.archive.org/20080201080305/http://www.originsgamefair.com/awards/2001] and two additional nominations [http://groups.google.com/group/origins-announcements/browse_thread/thread/d99126cc7bf4add8][http://gamanews.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/35th-origins-awards-nominees-announced/], which may qualify him for notability under WP:ANYBIO clause 1, unless the Origins Award doesn't count. Which is possible, but it's the most important award in English-speaking roleplaying, so the implications would be troublesome for notability of many articles in this category. 12.54.225.20 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

::I have spent a while following through the awards. The issue for me comes for the following:

The award was given to the book not the authors (This is an important distinction as there is still a question of notability of the author as opposed to the book/game), the category is game supplement (this is a tricky situation but the supplement means that it is neither a prize winning book nor game). Finally it was only the 3rd edition that Rob contributed to which without RS picking up the importance of the award means that the award does not verify his notability as Ed Greenwood was responsible for creating the original game. On an aside the 2010 game supplement had seven named people I think there is a definite case that the award doesn't automatically bestow notability, especially when there is a Hall of Fame category which he and his games are not inTetron76 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I guess we may have to agree to disagree here. My belief, from familiarity with the field, is that the Origins Awards are earned by the author of the work: e.g., Heinsoo has an Origins Award statue on his bookshelf with his name on it [http://robheinsoo.livejournal.com/39944.html]. We might compare this to a Best Screenplay Oscar -- the award is given to the screenplay, and often screenplays have multiple writers, but nobody questions that the writers collectively earned the award. I agree that such an award doesn't automatically bestow notability, but note that Heinsoo has three nominations in disparate categories. Thanlis (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I did find that D&D 4e won some awards but Rob is not mentioned, while I found this story [http://nitessine.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/merry-christmas-wotcs-annual-layoffs-rpg-superstar-2010/] probably explains the difficulty in finding any WotC confirmation of importance it still regrettably leaves the key points of notability unverifiable such as his individual contribution to D&D. Tetron76 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Major designer on a recent major overhaul of a major game (D&D), which is a decades-old, genre-defining media property. Leadwind (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:Even if you find the sources calling him a major designer it would still be necessary to show that these changes had a profound effect on D&D. For example the Origins award would appear not to regard it as a distinct game whereas they do accept the difference between AD&D and D&D.Tetron76 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::Sorry, gotta disagree with you there! The Origins Awards explicitly acknowledged D&D 4th Edition as a separate game in 2009: it got a nomination as Best Roleplaying Game [http://gamanews.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/35th-origins-awards-nominees-announced/]. (Note Heinsoo's name listed as one of the three authors.) This category is not for Best Roleplaying Game Available; it's for Best Roleplaying Game of the year. New editions are explicitly not eligible unless there are significant differences to the point where it's clearly a different game. I realize I don't have a reference for this claim; I am currently digging one up and will edit this comment when I can provide one. Thanlis (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Per BOZ and per Thanlis' discussion of WP:BIO. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Heinsoo not only meets BIO #3, but BIO #1 as well, (only one of the five is required). 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

:Arguably he meets #2 as well: 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Hopefully some new cites can be found that will show that more clearly.

:Anarchangel (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::While I acknowledge that boardgames still have a major "word of mouth" recognition that doesn't apply in other areas wikipedia still requires WP:V. While there are subjective terms that are not clearly defined I would still expect that sources are produced that support this case. So WP:CREATIVE}} #1 widely cited by peers should have [[WP:RS as would #3 and the major contribution would need to be shown too. Same goes for anybio "significant" award.Tetron76 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2011 (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.