- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep. Withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure)11WB (talk)13:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Gareth Damian Martin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log |edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)
There is some stuff on Google, but it consists almost entirely of interviews (which areWP:PRIMARY and don't count asWP:SIGCOV), and one paragraph pages likethis, with unknown reliability. I'm personally not seeing notability here.11WB (talk)10:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Before anything else, I'd like to point out that Damian Martin's page originally existed as a redirection page toCitizen Sleeper. If discussion concludes that Damian Martin doesn't satisfyWP:N at this point in time, I believe it would be best to turn the page back to this previous version rather than full-on delete it.Arandomfolk (talk)14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Damian Martin's notability underWP:GNG is admittedly debatable, particularly when it comes to SIGCOV. However, I believe they qualify underWP:CREATIVE, points 3. and 4.c).
- In full honesty, I decided tobe bold primarily for the sake ofWP:CAT, especially because Damian Martin belongs to several categories that are sparsely populated and I believe users looking into said categories may welcome the possibility to learn about Damian Martin through CAT, which wasn't possible with the previous status of the page as a mere redirect.Arandomfolk (talk)15:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perWP:CREATIVE as the main author of three notable works. There is not enough non-interview coverage to justify GNG, but we have SNGs exactly for cases like this. His output is definitely impressive, for example, theFinancial Times desribes himas
British solo developer Gareth Damian Martin is one of the best writers in modern gaming
(brief mention).Kelob2678 (talk)14:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]- That is a good find, but it is only aWP:TRIVIALMENTION.11WB (talk)16:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- This is irrelevant. Trivial mentions aren't enough to establish notability under GNG, but the point that @Kelob2678 and I both made is that we don't need to satisfy the GNG because we have the SNG (specifically WP:CREATIVE) for this.Arandomfolk (talk)19:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- You've disregarded my reply. That's fine. It is an essay anyway, so it doesn't matter. Can you provide the evidence for how it passes CREATIVE?11WB (talk)00:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB Answering your latest comment here as requested by Svartner:
First, I apologize if my tone got dry yesterday. I have to admit I am frustrated that you promptly nominated my stub as AfD, then didn't react to my answer for a week yet quickly answered Kelob with apparent cherry-picking, which makes it hard to keep assuming good faith. And I had a very long and tiring day yesterday, which didn't help my mood and my ability to assume good faith. To answer your points/requests:
- I'm not disregarding your comment, I'm saying it has no relevance to what Kelob and I are saying because we're not looking for SIGCOV of to satisfy the GNG. By the way, as mentioned inWP:TRIVIAL, “On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention.” I'd argue the Financial Times describing Damian Martin as “one of the best writers in modern gaming” isn't trivial. Short, yes. Trivial? No. It's neither trivia nor a tangent.
- Wrt how Damian Martin passes CREATIVE:
- Criterion 3: “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)”
- Damian Martin is the primary creator of all three games they released as the one-person development studio Jump Over The Age:In Other Waters,Citizen Sleeper andCitizen Sleeper 2. A quick glance at their respective pages is enough to check that they satisfy the criterion of being “the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”.
- Criterion 4: “The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.”
- In Other Water was received favorably and Citizen Sleeper 1 & 2 were critically acclaimed and are the recipients of a couple of prestigious awards and were nominated to multiple more, so Damian Martin passes 4.c).
TL;DR: Passes under both WP:CREATIVE criteria 3 and 4.c).Keep, or at the very least revert back to a Redirect instead of deleting.Conflict of interest: creator of the stub.Arandomfolk (talk)12:35, 15 February 2026 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
