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 Redirect to Electronic Arts. Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't feel strongly about this, but I'd like to bring it up to see what others think.

First, there isn't significant coverage of this person in secondary sources. The only coverage I was able to find was this: http://www.fastcolabs.com/3007250/open-company/boxs-65-year-old-android-engineer-gives-your-startup-some-unsentimental-advice

Second, this person may satisfy the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, but I'm not particularly convinced, since there doesn't seem to be any awards or capstone work attributed to him. This area is where I am not certain, but leaning towards delete. Transcendence (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I note that the current secondary source in the article says: He was a founding member of Electronic Arts (now a ~billion dollar corporation). The English-WP entry on his first game, Worms?#Reception, says it was very well received— the pullquotes from Compute's Gazette show it wasn't selected for an award as such, but was selected as one of a list of "Our Favorite Games". Calling it "still in a class by itself" after some years means it was so innovative as to be significantly creative. That nice FastCo article you found attests that he's been an enduring presence in the industry, which speaks toward him being the opposite of if he were just some guy somewhere who only ever just banged out a PET backport of Pitfall! and was never heard of again. Having more secondary sources (such as wouldn't just repeat / further-attest what we already saw in the first source, because there's several of those) would indeed be very welcome. Elsewhere... I see pieces and parts... let's see... a gaming article referred to him as "a legend among game programmers", which doesn't seem like something that would be pulled out of nowhere.
  Him having worked on the Xerox Star and the Mother of All Demos is also rather significant, because that's srs busns historically. I am doe-eyed unfamiliar with how to shoehorn importance and significance like this into English Wikipedia's DSM5-like WP: STUFF criteria system. (...or, another philosophy would say, how the English Wikipedia's criteria system should shoehorn around an article like this.) The article could be better as articles go, but looking at what's right with the article in sum, expresses quite enough significance of the subject for me to call Strong Keep. —Sburke (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Electronic Arts is fine as a plausible, cheap search term, though it would be better if his mention in the article was sourced. czar ♔ 05:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Delete. I come bearing the DSM-5. If the currently unsourced text is to be believed (BLP, anyone?), Maynard has had an impressive career. However, notability is not inherited: even though he may have worked on big projects (and perhaps was even a big player in some of those projects), that may ultimately warrant a mention on those articles' pages, but the question is whether Maynard as an individual meets the GNG. Articles must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The best I can find on him is that Fast Company article. A WP:VG/RS search shows two brief mentions (which are more about the company than the individual). This is to say that we don't have nearly enough sourcing to write about Maynard as a figure. Accordingly, the article will only accrete unsourced materials (against BLP policy). czar ♔ 01:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Electronic Arts. If sources can be found that establish notability and can verify the information in the article then it can be resurrected from the history. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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} 02:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only source here is a game site that allows anyone to edit, so this is not a reliable source. I looked and could not find any other sources. I can find him under lists of people who worked at Xerox Park, but that's not enough for notability. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2014 (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.