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. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Gultnieks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find enough coverage for this software developer to put him over the notability threshold despite a pretty long search. Would have tagged for speedy, but since the subject is a Wikipedian himself thought it better to bring for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although Ciaran is not currently as active as he was, back in the day he was a significant figure in the industry. I believe that deletion would be another example of Wikipedia's unfortunate tendency towards recentism. Ringbark (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, it doesn't look like he received any significant coverage in the past, either. The best I can find is the quick mention in CRASH issue 64. Are you able to find anything to show that he was a significant figure, back in the day? Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not game to follow the "there are lots of articles about less important people" as this isn't what this discussion is about. The problem is that most of the articles about him were in dead tree magazines that haven't made it to the online world. Nevertheless, the thought that he was no less important than lots of people who do feature here is one I can't shake. Also, where would people go if they wanted a quick biographical summary about the subject? The OP concedes that he can find *some* coverage. The only question is whether it's enough to say he's notable. I say yes - evidently there is dispute on this point. Ringbark (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Offline sources are fine, provided they are still non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete simply as a WP:BLP without much of anything supporting it. Nifboy (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Software Refinery which is a company that he had a hand in founding. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree with merge - not just a founder of that company but also leed developer of many well known games from vector grafix, microprose, activision, domark like star wars for example. Also as a hardwar fan I remember many interviews etc at that time which must count as not-trivial 82.42.5.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC). — 82.42.5.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you could find some of those interviews....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slipstream 5000 was the subject of a major article in PC Format, which also focussed on the people in the company including Ciaran.
Keep - As per WP:CREATIVE I would say he qualifies as a creative professional under this: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Ringbark (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also: The original article at Wikipedia lists four computer games he worked on which are notable enough to have articles of their own. Ringbark (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.