`  :: I support the removal. Without definite conditions to determine who is notable, an editor would be tempted to put in designers who has only a single hit game (which might even be a flash in the pan). We could: ::* Establish a list of conditions. The problem is we are not qualified to judge. However, whatever we state as qualities for ``notable game designer`` would be original research. ::* Change the notable list to ``Examples of notable game designers``. Explicitly state the list is only a few examples (one or two). The examples would be selected from the West and the East by category, or generation of video games. We would still get into ``Hasashi is more notable than Miyagi / Eckleland made the bong physics, Dugger only created its basics`` sort of arguments. ::* Restrict the list to designers who have received notable awards from the entertainment industry (change the title to ``Award winning video game designers`` as well). Much more restrictive, and would be harder to dig up from. There would be arguments award winning does not constitute notability, but that is why we would change the list title. :: At the end of it, putting a ``notable`` list does seem to be more trouble than it's worth.   `