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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Jen Zee (  | 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)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The entire article is sourced to trivial mentions from reviews of the games she made artwork for, or primary coverage interviews. All the sources are about the development of Bastion or other video games rather than directly being about the subject and the info would most likely be better off in their respective development sections. I suggest merging to Supergiant Games which she is predominantly known for, with pretty much all mentions of her being in the context of her work at that studio only. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: For full transparency, I'm the author of the article and asked Zxcvbnm to bring the article to AfD after he redirected it. I also would ask that if the article is deleted, it should be redirected to Supergiant Games. It's a reasonable redirect target, and the history would be kept in case she either got more coverage (and we can use the work I've done here and easily move it into other places). That said, I feel that she meets WP:GNG already today per my arguments below:

• Per WP:NARTIST, 4c says, "won significant critical attention." I'd argue that a BAFTA for Artistic Achievement that was awarded to well, her specifically, definitely and easily qualifies for it, and the deluge of critical reception that calls her out by name specifically is rare in video games. Her win was actually the reason that I created this article (most other winners had their own pages). She was also (on her own as a credit) nominated for a DICE award as well.
• I'd argue that although interviews are the main part of the articles that are more about "her", they do feature commentary about her work as well (in a way a straight interview article normally wouldn't) and pass WP:SIGCOV. Examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3].
• The mentions are also extremely extensive in reviews and repeatedly call her out by name in a way that is extremely uncommon in the video game medium. At a certain point, once someone has enough coverage like this where they're constantly, I think it has to qualify. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
• Lastly, and this is an ignore all rules argument: we suck at covering women in Wikipedia (although we're making more progress on it). And for video game development, artists are commonly one of the largest categories where female staff is dominant, but coverage is often lighter because articles come out highlighting their work instead of diving into it (see two random examples I quickly pulled here: [9], [10]). We have an example of an award-winning female artist in her field, and although a portion of this content could (and should) be covered at the company page, this is the exact sort of thing that we should find a way to cover individually at Wikipedia. Nomader ( talk) 05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

To be sure, an "ignore all rules" argument would make more sense if this artist were just scooching up to the notability line and had a couple of significant articles to her name. Maybe it wouldn't normally be quite enough but that could be waived to ensure there was no bias.

But, this situation is not that. There is no significant coverage at all, just a bunch of shout-outs. The Transistor review in The Mary Sue name-checks the artist and that's it. Any suggestion she is notable is simply wishful thinking. The interview articles are, well, almost entirely about the game's design, rather than the artist. They belong in the development section of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that the large number of interviews that she's done in notable publications, the coverage that her work has received, and the awards that she has been given and nominated for make her pass WP:GNG and are far past shout-outs and passing mentions. I want to avoid needlessly refbombing this discussion with more refs, but I encourage editors who are thinking about which way to !vote to review the scale of the references in the article and the many pieces that both focus on her work (and her) along with the BAFTA award and DICE nomination pieces before making a decision. Nomader ( talk) 01:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sourcing shows she clearly falls under WP:CREATIVE's #3, at minimum, and thus we don't have to worry about the GNG at this time. That allowance means there's need to expand out, but per standard AFD rules, this doesn't have to be done "now". -- Masem ( t) 02:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Nomader laid out a good case as to why she meets notability criteria for creative professionals, and Masem made some good points about AfD rules and where an expectation of a deluge in coverage, so to speak, is not necessary for this particular subject. The nominator's rationale is noted, but not accepted. Haleth ( talk) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep She meets our guidelines for notability. Nomader has made a case for the bio meeting WP:GNH and Masem has shown that she meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Bruxton ( talk) 14:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the article clearly meets guidelines for notability as other users have pointed out. Historyday01 ( talk) 00:32, 23 March 2023 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.