Talk:Dave Nutting

Untitled

Nutting Associates and Dave Nutting Associates were two different video games companies that should not be confused.

Nutting Associates was founded in the late 1960s by Bill Nutting and went bankrupt in 1973. The company was responsible for developing Bushnell's Computer Space, the first coin-operated video game ever.

Dave Nutting Associates was founded by Bill Nutting's own brother Dave Nutting. Dave Nutting Associates worked with Midway for many of their releases, notably the Gun Fight arcade game as well as the Astrocade home computer. At some point, Dave Nutting Associates even went on being acquired by Bally before being shut down by Bally during the video game crash of 1983.

Therefore Dave Nutting Associates didn't not created Computer Space, Nutting Associates did. The redirect at Nutting Associates will have to be removed as well as the section on this article stating that they've created Computer Space. Right now I don't have time to proceed with the modifications but will in the course of the week if someone hasn't already did.

— Farine — June 2nd 2006 (UTC)

Notability

This article does not make clear any claim to notability. Anna Rundell (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strange interpretation. Article claims that he was responsible for the first microprocessor-based pinball design, an important milestone in that industry, and that he or his firm designed several aracde games and a video game console that all have articles on wikipedia themselves (all true claims by the way). Sources, yeah we should have some of those, but lack of notability, not really, unless you are talking in terms of the WP:N guideline, which is really redundant with the sources requirement. Just because you have never heard of a person does not mean he is not notable, and I do kind of resent people that have no knowledge on a topic getting involved in content disputes as that just leads to pointless discussions like this one. Adding a sources needed tag was clearly the right thing to do, but making a notability judgment without doing any of your own research? In my opinion, that is just sloppy and unhelpful. I won't remove the tag in the interest of avoiding a pointless edit war, but I also have no desire to source the article (I am mostly retired from wikipedia). I suppose you could take it to afd if you feel strongly about your notability argument, but I guarantee sources will be presented if you do, so its really up to you. Indrian (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, for notability I am talking in terms of the notability guideline (significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject). I do not see that the claims in the article address the guidelines (a notable award or honor, or often nominated for them or a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field) even if they can be sourced. Anna Rundell (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)