Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Smith (illustrator) (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 28. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Smith (illustrator)
AfDs for this article:
- Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Biographical article on an illustrator that still does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Earlier AfD resulted in "No Consensus", and in the six months since then, no reliable sources have been found. The citations provided in the article are sufficient only to confirm non-controversial details, not to establish notability. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'll say the same thing I said last time: contributer to numerous children's magazines (including a cover), independent comic books, and album covers, plus winner of several small awards, most of them referenced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required. Having and doing a job is not criteria for notability. There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable. --neon white talk 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Scientizzle 15:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think that we have implied notability here. If someone is mentioned in enough places independent of his control, then people are noticing this person, which is what we are looking for. While not specifically in the guidelines, I think that being mentioned enough by independent third parties indicates notability. Once established, the article can be written from primary source material. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, could you revisit this? You're saying that if I can get lots of people to mention me, I can get an article even though there are no reliable sources to write a bio from? Corvus cornixtalk 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's where we need to use good judgment. There is a perceptible difference between self-generated hype and legitimate mention by credible and/or independent sources. There is a type of recognition that falls short of providing the robust secondary sources typically required by WP:N, but leads me to believe that the person is noticed in the world, which is the self described spirit of WP:N. Of course we should only include in the article that which can be referenced to primary, secondary or tertiary sources. This a bit abstract and doesn't conform to WP:N, but after all, we ignore all rules, and WP:N is just a guideline.--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you at least admit your analysis "doesn't conform to WP:N." If you want to invoke WP:IAR, that's fine and I will respect that, but you probably should have just said that up front. — Satori Son 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's where we need to use good judgment. There is a perceptible difference between self-generated hype and legitimate mention by credible and/or independent sources. There is a type of recognition that falls short of providing the robust secondary sources typically required by WP:N, but leads me to believe that the person is noticed in the world, which is the self described spirit of WP:N. Of course we should only include in the article that which can be referenced to primary, secondary or tertiary sources. This a bit abstract and doesn't conform to WP:N, but after all, we ignore all rules, and WP:N is just a guideline.--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, could you revisit this? You're saying that if I can get lots of people to mention me, I can get an article even though there are no reliable sources to write a bio from? Corvus cornixtalk 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & Riot Wyatt - it's not enough for WP:BIO Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: I'm arguing to keep, not delete. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments point to delete. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I believe that notability of this person is verifiable. Gioto (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2008 (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.