Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Galley (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Stu Galley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Ryan Vesey 05:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I participated in the earlier AfD a couple months back, and I'm still uncertain about whether he meets the criteria for a WP:CREATIVE professional. He developed popular interactive fiction video games back in the mid-1980s and was recognized for his work by being covered in a few media sources.  However, the coverage I've been able to locate thus far  may not be quite enough to clearly establish his notability relative to WP:GNG and WP:BIO.  I'd prefer that a couple more good sources turn up before casting a "keep" vote.  Here's what I presented in the earlier AfD, repeated here for convenience:
 * He was interviewed as part of the GET LAMP documentary (which was released under a Creative Commons license, so I can note that the documentary's interview with Stu Galley is viewable on the Internet Archive).
 * An interview published in the Commodore 64 magazine Zzap
 * A description (~3 paragraphs) of Galley's career with Infocom was published in "The Imps of Infocom are still alive and kicking", Computer Game Review. April, 1996. Vol. 5, No. 9. Pages 83-88. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's up to the editors involved to prove Notability. I don't see the proof. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I located a couple additional sources: (1) An interview with Galley published in XYZZY News: The Magazine for Interactive Fiction Enthusiasts (Issue #9, May/June 1996), and (2) Another interview with Galley published by the The Oral History of Video Games, a "multi-year joint project of the IGDA Game Preservation SIG and the Interactive Media and Game Development program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute." . In combination, the sources I've located seem (just barely) enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR.  Moreover, the video games designed by Galley while he was at Infocom are significant because they were the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:CREATIVE). --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Needs more time for responses to that last keep to develop, especially as the previous AFD was closed quickly as no consensus with little participation


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  02:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even with the interviews, subject isn't independently notable for his work. He got a plaque but it appears to be for the game and not his independent contribution. If print sources on his personal impact on the games were unearthed, I'd reconsider, but I don't see that happening. I don't see it passing WP:CREATIVE (including #4) as it stands, similar to the treatment of game writers/devs of comparable standing. czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:25, 14 April 2013 (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.