Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Glaiel


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Glaiel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Again a video game developer wants his wiki page. Notability is not inherited from the available references. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Looking around, there are a handful of sources that mention the name but only ever in connection with "Galiel developed X, collaborated with Y" kind of articles. However, notability is not inherited from the games being discussed and the sources do not contain any in-depth coverage of Glaiel. The voice-activated face mask is a trivial news event. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added additional sources. He was included in Forbes 30 under 30 (games section) in 2016. The assessment by IceWelder above that "none of the sources contain any in-depth coverage of Glaiel" is plainly wrong and can't be based on actually looking at them. The multiple interviews, esp. the Oxford University Press one, are obviously in-depth coverage of him. Also it's my understanding that notability IS inherited from his games, based on points 3 and 4 in WP:AUTHOR. His game Closure esp. obviously satisfies both those points. Thisisarealusername (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC) EDIT: WP:INHERIT specifically says: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances".Thisisarealusername (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews are inherently primary sources and are not "counted" for purposes of establishing notability. In-depth coverage is analysis independent of the subject. re: inheriting notability, if his role in those games is noteworthy, there should be plenty of material written about the individual. czar  02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If interviews are considered "inherently primary sources" that don't "count" for establishing notability, why is that not mentioned with as much as a word in Notability? Also I think you misunderstand WP:AUTHOR. The point of those guidelines is specifically that there doesn't have to be "plenty of material written about the individual" for them to qualify for inclusion, if they fulfill any of the other points (and again, this article is a shoo-in for points 3 and 4). Nevertheless, I think the amount of material I've dug up on Glaiel also meets WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR.Thisisarealusername (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For your first question, see the summary at WP:42, which reads
 * (emphasis mine)
 * My above analysis concerns only the independent sources and I believe it remains valid in that context. WP:AUTHOR#3 is valid only in the context of the "Additional criteria" section as a whole, which begins with:
 * (emphasis mine)
 * It is not an immediate notability pass; czar's interpretation is apt. Comparably, Imran Sarwar is not inherently notable through Grand Theft Auto V, which he co-designed and co-produced, despite that game being one of the best-selling and highest-ranked of all time. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that interviews (published in reliable sources) are not counted for establishing notability does not seem to be actually founded in policy, or it would be mentioned in said policy. Frankly, the idea does not make much sense to me. If hypothetically an author appears in a 2-page spread interview in the New York Times over one or several books they've written, you are saying we are to disregard this interview when establishing if they are notable or not? Why on Earth should we do that? What purpose could it possibly serve? A WP:COMMONSENSE understanding of the word "notability" obviously includes things like being interviewed by the New York Times, unless it's a man-on-the-street kind of thing or something similarly trivial. I understand that FACTS presented by an interviewee in an interview can be problematic from a Verifiability perspective, as they are primary sources, even if presented in a WP:RS. But WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability are clearly two different concepts, two different policies. Thisisarealusername (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: WP:AUTHOR, my understanding is that it's not merely "additional details" but a bona fide WP:SNG. The notability guidelines specifically say that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). I will ask for a clarification on this on the Notability (people) talk page. Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not yet formed a view. But I just want to point out that WP:42 has a specific disclaimer highlighting that it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, so unless someone can cite a specific guideline-only provision which specifically proscribes interviews when assessing secondary sources for notability, citing WP:42 is not at all helpful or even relevant. If we are going to refer to essays in an instructive manner to deal with the nature of interviews, Interviews goes into detail and provides much more useful, nuanced advice for interviews since they are material that falls somewhere in between. I'm also a bit confused with the nomination; is the nominator alleging that the creator of the article has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article? Haleth (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article considerably since the time it was nominated. Difference between revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Glaiel&diff=1035772139&oldid=1035360847 I assume it wouldn't have been nominated if it had looked like this from the start. I'll avoid creating new articles "incrementally" in the future.Thisisarealusername (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification No_original_research Note c lists interviews as a primary source. The No Original Research also does go on to state that notability shall be demonstrated by using secondary and tertiary sources. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The exact words are including (depending on context) reviews and interviews with a link to Reliable sources, so there is certainly room for interpretation with regards to whether interviews are or are not a primary source, and under what context can such material be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. Haleth (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am aware of this subject matter and I can attest that Tyler Glaiel is certainly notable, due to his impressive ludography as a designer & programmer. However, this page certainly needs some cleanup and expansion, to reflect on the aforementioned notability.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 06:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per above, subject is notable as per available reliable coverage. Nytendoz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets notability per provided sources. Peter303x (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2021 (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.