Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Smith (illustrator)

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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (illustrator)

Biographical article on an illustrator that I do not believe meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Contested PROD, so comes here for discussion. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. — Satori Son 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough. Red rocket boy 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable third party sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, contributer to numerous children's magazines, independent comic books, and album covers, plus winner of several small awards (one of them referenced), all mentioned in the article. While I do agree that the article needs more references, I think that individual {{fact}} tags or a more general {{refimprove}} tag would be better than deleting the entire article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While that's an argument that can be entertained for a brand new article, this one has been here for a year and a half. Even when a proposed deletion tag was added, no references were supplied, so how are a couple {{fact}} tags going to help? This article can always be restored if reliable sources are found. — Satori Son 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You added a PROD originally because you felt that there were no "reliable, third-party published sources" in the article. I removed the PROD because I felt that there already were two such references which were both independent of the subject and reliable as far as the claims which were made. It is certainly possible that adding {{fact}} tags may solve nothing, but since they have never been added to this article, there is simply no way to tell. The AfD process page even recommends adding such tags to the article before listing it for AfD. I simply feel that deleting the article at this point is premature, especially since I personally feel that notability has been proven. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wyatt Riot. Artw (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable Clubmarx (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, revisit later. Some sources on page, of questionable value. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (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.