Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Pelling


 * 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, with noted hesitations but a clear "keep" consensus, currently. (non-admin closure) czar  ♔  22:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Pelling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of meeting our notability guidelines is present in the article. The only sources given are self-published books and blogs. The subject activity edits here and likes to promote himself as a expert on the Voynich Manuscript and other things, using his own blog and self-published books as sources. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did indeed make some edits here (a modest 13 edits out of 67 total edits, over a seven year period), but the other 54 edits were made by other people entirely. I have been interviewed on television and radio about the Voynich Manuscript and other cipher mysteries a good number of times, and have been cited and quoted in numerous books, magazines and newspapers (e.g. The Sunday Times two months ago). I did write many computer games under the nom de plume "Orlando M. Pilchard" (I removed them all from the Wikipedia page in response to a previous criticism, but other Wikipedia users have since reinstated three, apparently believing them notable), and I did invent the word "gamification". Nickpelling (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide citations to these sources so they can be added to the article. In the absence of citations to independent articles that establish your notability, your article should be deleted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Subject is credited as having coined the term gamification. He's also noted as a programmer of video games on the BBC Micro and Commodore-64, and I recall repeated reference to his BBC Micro work in various 8-bit Acorn computer magazines back in the day. These are unfortunately not all readily available online, but I'll see what I can find. Pelling was also interviewed in 2006 in connection with retrogaming, and the manuscript work has also been independently noted. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A little confusing because there are other authors with the same name. if there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources please provide it for consideration. thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep if only for his production of some landmark games I grew up playing. I found his page whilst researching Arcadians, and if arbitrary deletion had taken place I would never have been able to track down the other games made by him for Acornsoft, etc. His fifteen minutes of fame were more like 15 years, eclipsed and forgotten by time perhaps and maybe too old for some editors here, but this is far from a vanity bio and the person does clearly meet the notability guidelines IMHO. (@bashpr0mpt on Twitter, welcome invite to add me, I follow back.) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Pelling's blog on mysterious ciphers is wonderfully creative and well-written. He is in the top rank of Voynich specialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAg54 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not criteria for having a Wikipedia article. Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm coming here from Talk:Voynich manuscript, where NP stated, "I am currently trying to find clickable versions of the 20+ newspaper articles where I have been interviewed and quoted at length." The claim, in and of itself, seems to confer notability. However, I looked at WP:Notability (people). WP:BASIC seems to fail. Pelling's claim is newspaper interviews, and interviews would not be secondary sources. An interviewer is usually not critiquing his subject. Newspaper interviews about technical subjects would not usually have the interviewer being an expert in the field. Primary sources do not contribute to notability. WP:ANYBIO seems to fail: there are no awards and there does not seem to be any widely recognized achievement. Coining "gamification" can be covered in that article; the book Gamification: A Simple Introduction by Andrzej Marczewski mentions Pelling in passing in the foreword, but apparently nowhere else; the comments suggest others developed the field. Being an early game programmer needs context. Are the games significant in their own right? Writing a program or developing a product does not imply notability. Trevj's comment re Acorn can go either way: is it stature from other gamers or more newspaper-style interviews. Is it a narrow trade pub? The comment by Bash raises a question about NP and Acornsoft: is NP one of many programmers developing the games or is he the sole developer? NP is not pointing to significant achievements in game programming. NP is not claiming patents or significant developments. The article uses computer games to claim notability, but neither Pelling nor Pilchard are mentioned in that article. Neither is there mention in BBC Micro. The game Elite (video game) (not developed by NP) is mentioned, and that article did not have trouble pulling up sources (the game was put on many platforms). NP holds himself out as an expert and a researcher on the VM, but nothing suggests that WP:Notability (academics) applies. I don't think there's any claim to writing referreed papers for Crypto or other significant cryptographic pubs. WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE does not seem to hold for VM (regarded as an important figure; widely cited; peers/successors reference his work; significant theory or technique). Blogs and self-published works are not evidence for N. Where is a secondary source that confers statutre on NP? Maybe there's a little more for gaming, but I'm ignorant there. I suspect there have been many books written about programming games; if NP was prominent, then why isn't he mentioned in them? I'm leaning delete. Glrx (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment pretty much summarizes my view. I'm not a deletionist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have tried and failed to find secondary sources that confer notability. Folks have mentioned here that his blog is good or that he knows a lot about Voynich, but these are not compelling arguments for the subject meeting our notability standards. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 11:48, 1 April 2008 version of the article includes numerous games, although it is accepted that there are no sources and therefore we don't know the extent of the subject's involvement. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say keep, but I don't see a clear path (other than IAR). I'd like the newspaper articles and such to do it, but I'm not comfortable with that given the WP advice above. There's a claim above that NP has "been cited and quoted in numerous books". That looks good, but when I followed the book link, there were books that republished/mirror WP content; books about VM were prior to the selfpub. One of the computer game articles suggested that the computer game resembled an existing arcade game. There's lots of weak stuff; just give me something solid. Glrx (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I've peeled back several layers here and I just keep finding self-published sources and self-referencing bits of information. Just being interviewed or contributing to video game development does not confer notability. There are hundreds of people that work on these things and they're not notable. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a distinct difference between "video game development" as we now know it in 2014 and individual videogame authorship (solely or largely by a single individual) of the '80s (and in some cases '90s). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully your question can be answered and the sources can be located. I would have no problem recreating this article with secondary sources even if it's deleted here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. It's a shame that the sources are so patchy. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some historical cipher-related interviews: (2001) New Scientist (Catherine Zandonella) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17223174.900-book-of-riddles.html (subscriber pay-wall), (2003) Nature http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031215/full/news031215-5.html, (2013)http://nautil.us/issue/6/secret-codes/the-artist-of-the-unbreakable-code . Sadly, all my (non-retro) computer games press interviews predate the modern Internet. Yes, I agree it's patchy, but the twists and turns of a person's real life rarely arrange themselves in the neat patterns that would make them useful. Nickpelling (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Questions (directed at article subject Mr Pelling) Of the video games you've worked on (I have no direct knowledge of later aspects contributing towards notability), for how many (or for what proportion) were you basically the sole author? And what references (if any) do you recall that home computing (or other gaming) magazines, etc. noted your personal involvement and/or interviewed you, etc.? (I accept that the answers could amount to original research, but they may provide direction for further searches for sources.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My original self-designed / self-developed computer games were Frak!, Firetrack, and 3D Pool / 3D Pocket Pool. I was the sole programmer and main developer on more than 10 others, some of which (like Atom Galaxians, Arcadians, Zalaga) were inspired by existing arcade games; conversions of licensed arcade games (Enduro Racer); conversions between platforms (Dandy (though Mike Bryant helped keep me awake), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (with Carl Muller), Monopoly, Bart Simpson meets Radioactive Man, Wing Commander, Duke Nukem (with Paul Shirley), etc); and original publisher-owned titles (Loopz, Bangkok Knights, Battlemaster). These were all reviewed in the computer games press at the time, but where in the loft the folder containing my copies of them all is I don't know. Beyond these titles, I worked on more than 20 other titles, often brought in as a specialist to work on particular hard-to-get-right technologies (data compression, soft-skinning, speed optimization etc) - that's just the way the industry went over that period. Here's an interview with me from 1996: https://web.archive.org/web/20050306232855/http://www.beebgames.com/npinterv.htm Nickpelling (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I recall reading that was the case for Frak! and Firetrack. The beebgames.com interview seems to be a self-published source with apparently with no editorial oversight, so is unfortunately of little significance in terms of demonstrating notability. Maybe I'll be able to locate something else from BITD, but I can't bank on either (a) finding time to do so within the foreseeable future; or (b) actually having copies of the relevant magazines here where I live. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Very very weak keep As sources exist for the gamification stuff he should probably get a stub for that. But the Voynich self-pub shows no signs of notability so I removed that section. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CREATIVE. I've located an interview dating to 1987, and have also added a source to Frak! (although the review there doesn't mention the programmer). I sincerely doubt we'll get any better online sources than this (about the computer games aspect) before the end of this discussion, which is typical of such topics of the era. I've not mentioned the software company, Aardvark Software, although that's referred to in the interview. I've also not attempted to incorporate any of the gamification refs I noted above (mainly because my personal knowledge is lacking there). If the subject wishes to undetake further edits to the article (in accordance with the COI guidelines, I don't necessarily see a problem with doing so. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's a link to an article on gamification quoting me several times in today's edition of the British newspaper "Metro", with an infographic that I think was put together by IBM - incidentally, I don't think anyone has linked Muttley to gamification before, so Metro got a nice soundbite out of me. http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/25/twiddling-your-thumbs-in-the-office-can-gamification-revolutionise-the-workplace-4316519/ And here also is a link to an article on the Voynich Manuscript in last weekend's Boston Globe that quotes me several times - http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/02/23/why-scholars-can-resist-uncrackable-voynich-manuscript/FWGMJjrqolrQ50L86SpkQP/story.html Nickpelling (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a link to a 2008 History Today article I wrote (though behind a subscriber wall) on the early history of the telescope: http://www.historytoday.com/nick-pelling/who-invented-telescope Because it suggested a Barcelonan origin for the telescope, for a few weeks I was a minor celebrity in Spain, even appearing on the evening news. Whether that's "notable" or not I can't say: but it is what it is. Nickpelling (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Follow-up comment: Pursuant to the links Nickpelling has posted, I'm leaning toward keeping at this point. Unfortunately I won't have time this weekend to modify the article to integrate the sources. Can anyone help? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say 'yes'. But if so, it's unlikely to be before the AFD is closed (or relisted). Sorry. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (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.