Deletion of Andrew Gower (5th nomination)

Comment: to Jagex, his company, per Fuchs's source analysis. No notability |independent from the company
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42||WP:42)

Comment: or '''redirect''' relevant info into Jagex; the subject clearly doesn't meet  or merit a standalone article when there are better targets. Another AfD the better part of a decade after is not inappropriate, and helping to make a hit video game does not make oneself independently notable. If you're using archived links for ''job descriptions'' to try and source someone's bio, it's a pretty good indication that they don't merit their own page. Of the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Gower&oldid=1011170670 eleven current sources, at least six are primary or not independent—documentaries by the game's developers, the aforementioned job posting, minutes from board events, etc. We've got a plainly unreliable source (Retireat21). We've got a listicle from the ''Telegraph'' where Gower (along with his brother) are merely one of dozens of individuals, and a ''Guardian'' story about ''Runescape'' (not focused on Gower)—these are not . That leaves the only source that specifically focuses on the brothers as the ''Develop'' source. What you end up with is three sentences you could cite in Jagex or ''Runescape'' about how it made the brothers rich
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per , "''It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.''"  The last three discussions all resulted in '''Keep''' and so it is vexatious to try this again.  The nomination indicates a lack of understanding of the subject who is not notable just for being especially rich but for being the principal architect and creator of an outstandingly successful MMORPG which was recognised by Guinness as being the world's largest – comparable in size with Wikipedia, with over 200 million accounts.  When the nomination talks of low and erratic standards, it should start with itself per  as it is a blatant failure of  and contains absurd errors like "112 years".  It is clear that the policy  applies, "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.''" and the nomination makes no effort to address this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD||WP:SAUCE||WP:BEFORE||WP:ATD)

Comment: or '''redirect'''. 5th discussion for such a low quality /spammy  failure
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VANITY||WP:NBIO)

Comment: to Jagex.  As others have pointed out, notability is not inherited, so the fact that he made a famous game says nothing about his own notability.  None of the sources discuss *him* in meaningful detail separate from his game/company.  Also, I'd remind folks in this thread to keep it |civil as some of these comments against other users are quite silly and inappropriate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) 11 Dec 2003, Thu Page 76 reads ''RuneScape is the creation of Andrew Gower, who developed the game while a Cambridge undergraduate.''  Creating a game that made over a billion dollars makes him a notable entertainer.  People are notable for their accomplishments, not just the coverage they get for them.   '''Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER)