Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination)

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. Obviously there are many peripheral issues surrounding this AfD. The allegations of bad faith voting cannot be ignored. However, if we were to liberally discount all possibly disingenuous votes, we still have a hopelessly divided consensus. It would be best to wait until after the Arbitration case to relist. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Tylman

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman
• Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (5th nomination)

Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of this article fails both WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR, and appears to be have been created as a vanity article. The article subject has not been the recipient of significant press coverage and bok which the subject has published appear to be more like self-published booklets. Searches for Aspidistra Press show Tylman to the only person published by this publisher, indicating self published works. Richard_Tylman#Poetry confirms this as it says they are self published. There are no critical reviews or commentary of his works, so notability as an author/poet is not existent. His visual arts notability is also non-existent. There is zero notability in anything he has done in Poland before emigrating to Canada. His working as an airbrush illustrator is not notable - this occupation is a dime a dozen, and it would appear that the long list of works are referenced to the actual advertisement, not critical commentary on his works. The other problem is the sourcing to Tylman's own website. Yes, the article does have a lot of sources, but none of them establish notability for the subject. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the event that anybody considers Russavia's nomination to be an inappropriate extension of EE battles, I will adopt this nomination as my own. I've stated below the reasons I think this article should be deleted on the merits, regardless of wiki-politics. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note: User Russavia is a listed party in EEML ArbCom case while User Jehochman remains actively involved in arbitration talks. --Poeticbent talk 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also note: Poeticbent appears to be the subject of the article for deletion.[1] SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no real notability established as clearly pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Marcusmax(speak) 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to me that he meets the minimum threshold for a published author - and enough mentions in external, independent sources here. PS. If the article is deleted, please userfy it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable, referenced, and viable...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom,upon investigating the refs don't really hold up...Modernist (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the world of poetry publishing, but it seems like his work for ads featured in Time magazine, etc. that I point out below would by itself make for notability. Is there something wrong with those refs?radek (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as contributing to advertisements is not notable unless reliable sources discuss the merit of said contributions. Please delete only after Arbcom case The following was stricken due to the request by Russavia: is closed as this is the vanity article of User:Poeticbent (and his IP socks confirmed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent) about himself, see also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Richard_Tylman. Poeticbent, and User:Piotrus who voted keep above, are Involved_parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list which is also about coordinated editing. This article is a prime example, it would hardly have survived if not supported by other Polish editors. It's edit history should remain as evidence until the case is closed, then maybe moved to User space or elsewhere, out of the limelight. is closed. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, I do believe that the comments you have posted above are not helpful for the discussion, as they have been presented. Could you please strike the lot, and present an argument based upon the merits. I can't find anywhere at WP:EEML where the article is being presented as evidence or the like, so there is no real need for it to be kept. But if it should be going to be used as evidence (I don't see what for really), we can still discuss here, and move it to userspace, thereby keeping history if it is needed. Anyway, please consider striking comments. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Whatever the notability of the published poetry, I think this well-sourced paragraph establishes general notability: His work has been featured in advertisements published in newspapers and magazines such as Time,[8][9][10] Maclean's,[11] and Chatelaine.[12] Amongst the corporations for whom he provided illustrations are Petro-Canada, BCTel,[13] and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, as well as Canadian Pacific Airlines[14][10] with Wardair,[14] Pacific Western Airlines[8] with American Express,[15] Energy Mines and Resources Canada,[16] Tourism British Columbia for Expo 86,[17] West Edmonton Mall, Tetra Pak, Sun-Rype,[12] The Province and others.. It's sourced to Time, Maclean's and other secondary sources which definitely make the subject notable. radek (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the advertisements are not sourced to Time, Maclean's, etc. All that is being "linked" to is the existence of the advertisements in those publications, and there is no verifiable evidence from a reliable sources that the subject of the article has had anything to do with their creation. As a sidenote, a friend of mine works in Sydney for one of the biggest advertising agencies in the country, and does much the same type of work; under that interpretation of notability, almost any airbrush illustrator in the world would be worthy of an article. That is not, however, the case. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing I can do to alleviate your bitterness, but be assured, Time Magazine has never stopped charging their clients oodles for double spreads with illustrations regardless of how much has improved in terms of printing technology. Funny, you have a friend whose mind you can read, but in the print media WYSIWYG had always been the name of the game, in New York and in Toronto, even though it wasn't the case in Sydney if we were to believe you. --Poeticbent talk 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - quite a few cited sources. I don't see any harm to keep this article.--Jacurek (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Most or all of the reliable-looking sources are actually a form of synthesis and thus original research. The sources are used as primary references in an attempt to assert notability, the subjects work has appeared in all these famous places, so he must be famous too. No, he does not appear to be notable. Sprinkling an article with impressive-looking references does not work when the references don't talk about the subject. I do not see any substantial coverage of the subject by reliable sources, therefore, delete. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment—I would have voted Keep the last time around, and I would have preferred less combative timing on Russavia's part, and ideally, to have the AfD come from someone not portrayed as an adversary of individuals on the EEML. That said, the article does not seem to have progressed much since (I haven't checked the edit history, this is just my sense). I would suggest that as that the likeliest editors to add additional references in support of notability are currently otherwise occupied at EEML—going back to my concerns regarding timing—that the AfD simply be revisited a month from now and perhaps the article will have been improved and we discuss its merits at that time especially as there hasn't been an entry in the article's talk page since JANUARY of this year. It's rather poor form to nominate and article for deletion without expressing one's concerns in article talk and allowing editors the opportunity to make necessary improvements, especially when no one has had anything to say about the article for the better part of an entire year.
     I'm curious, are lodgings of AfD's regarding Baltic/EE articles and personalities within the scope of Russavia's topic ban or not? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment II—Whereas Tylman's English work appears to be self-published, his work does appear in Polish, for example,

Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz (fotografie) George Alexander KARNASIEWICZ (Photographs)
  "NOWA HUTA - OKRUCHY ŻYCIA I MEANDRY HISTORII" "Nowa Huta - The Remains LIFE AND HISTORY meanders"
  Teksty: o. Niward St. Texts: Fr Nivard St. Karsznia O.Cist., Franciszek Macharski, Jacek Majchrowski, Jan Paweł II, Alison Stenning, Ryszard Terlecki Karsznia O. Cist., Franciszek Macharski, Jacek Majchrowski, John Paul II, Alison Stenning, Richard Terlecki Poezja: Ryszard Tylman, Barbara Urbańska Poetry: Richard Tylman, Barbara Urbanska Wyd. Ed. Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce, 2003 Association of Slovaks in Poland, 2003

This is outside the realm of hack commercial illusrtation. Again, I would suggest handling this appropriately: discuss deficiencies and requested improvements in talk, then see where things stand. Voting at all, and certainly either way based on "per what the other guy said," is a bit premature. Is there a WP:TRAIN we're all rushing to catch? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment III—Nor is it that difficult (a few more minutes, takes some doing to filter out the Wiki-google-babble) to find a review. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This nomination is a blatant abuse of EE editing restrictions placed on the nominator by ArbCom as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia

I intend to write a report about this to ArbCom and to Sandstein personally within the next few hours. Please note, that users driven by a desire for revenge have attacked me before. As a notable wikipedian active in Eastern European topics often veiled in controversy, I serve as an easy target. It would therefore be naïve to expect that these BLP attacks will ever stop, especially during ArbCom proceedings involving extremists from many opposing camps. However, I cannot and will not regret being a part of the process for as long as this portal remains one of the most widely used resource tools online. Having to defend myself from problem users is the price I’m willing to pay for the privilege of writing about topics of vital importance for innumerable web surfers out there. --Poeticbent talk 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A sourced article about a notable contemporary artist. There is no reason to delete it, except for some personal axes to grind. Tymek (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the place to continue The Great Patriotic Wiki War. You can't control Russavia's actions, but you certainly can control your own. Please stop battling. If he's going to look bad, let him. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Arbcom clerk comment: Just a general notice that this page is under scrutiny, due to its peripheral relationship to an active Arbcom case. However no Arbcom directives have been made and this page is hence to proceed as a standard AFD. Poeticbent - Russavia cannot violate a sanction which hasn't yet passed. Manning (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Manning, but please confirm whether the existing ban still holds as per following quote:

2) Russavia (talk · contribs) … may freely edit other articles and pages but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban.

I’m a Polish-born author and fine art painter with a solid track record, therefore, a Wikipedia page about my person including the influence I once excerpted upon the young Polish art scene would likely fall within Eastern European matters. I’d like to have that confirmed before I start approaching arbitrators so as not to waste anybody’s time including mine. This BLP attack on me is a de facto attack on an Easter European contemporary artist and writer originally from Poland. Wouldn't you agree? --Poeticbent talk 02:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom have instructed me to let this AFD proceed and be decided on its merits. I will only intervene if this AFD discussion is improperly hijacked by disputes related to the EEML case. If you want a deeper clarification you will need to contact Arbcom, although with the entire EEML case being actively debated at present you may not get a swift response. Beyond that I have no personal comment. Manning (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless better evidence of notability exists. Does not appear to be much more notable than any other "routine advertising illustrator".

  The evidence of notability seems to be: 1/ considered an "up and coming artist" on one occasion in 1980 when he represented Kraków, and 2/ in his day to day work has worked on some some household name clients (+ reflected glory of where they paid to be published) and been in a team that won an industry award in Canada. These are just not enough to make the individual stand out among illustrators. Looking at other notability guidances such as PROF, ENTERTAINER, and POLITICIAN (BIO related) or CORP, etc, a much higher standard of discrimination is usually set for "notability in one's field of work", wherever criteria have been defined. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

actually, it's not that they're higher, but that they are different. The option of meeting the GNG always remains. I am not entirely sure that makes sense, but it has consistently been the interpretation of the relationship between the general and the special rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I nominated it the first time round, and I can't add much to the new nomination. The particularly lack of notability lies in the obscurity of publications mentioned, as well as many being evidently self-published; and I certainly agree that listing publications where commercial art appears doesn't constitute sourcing or demonstration of notability. We want articles about Richard Tylman in publications of some visibility. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep without prejudice to renomination by someone else after the arb closes, if it ever does. I consider this a spectacularly blatant example of a bad faith nomination--If arb com does not see it this way, perhaps the community will. Regardless of the merits of the article, this sort of nomination should not be tolerated. It's essentially a Personal Attack DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Jehochman. The sources do not support sufficient notability to justify an article. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per FT2, the sources do not seem particularly reliable and the seem to constitute some sort of backwards WP:CRYSTAL violation. Triplestop x3 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - largely per FT2 and per nom. The subject clearly doesn't meet notability requirement - Alison ^❤ 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Radek and DGG. Seems notable and sourced just enough to meet GNG. The circumstances of the nomination also do not help to judge in serenity. --Cyclopia^talk 00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, but regardless, I also find comments made by DGG, Radek and Cyclopia to be most revealing. There's a difference between genuine interest in improving the overall quality of this portal, and a political provocation stemming from years of frustration, personal grievances, and general disenchantment with the coverage of Eastern European affairs in Wikipedia. --Poeticbent talk 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To closing administrator, this AfD has become a battlefield in the Eastern European disputes. On the one side we have the usual pro-Poland disputants voting keep, and on the other side we have pro-Russia disputant Russavia nominating for deletion. I strongly recommend discounting the tendentious votes of those who are here to battle. Give more weight to the opinions of the uninvolved parties such as DGG and Alison, among others. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep of course. The AfD is clearly politically motivated, with numerous delete votes coming from people trying to have a revenge on damned Poles on wiki. The article has numerous sources, though he is a relatively little known figure, he deserves an article much more than Pokemon figures or stubs on tiny and extremely obscure organizations like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Movement (though I'd personally keep the latter, too). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I voted delete in the first AfD and always assumed that the article was allowed to stay because the primary editor, User:Poeticbent, is a barnstarred editor of some worth. All this Poland v Russia geopolitical stuff is news to me.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Several editors here have COIs:
  • Richard Tylman's wikipedia account is user:Poeticbent, as he had revealed here and as is obvious from the 1st AfD and his comments above
  • Several users voting here are off-wiki friends of Richard Tylman (list)
  • The nominating editor is involved in disputes with this group. I thus recommend that the closing admin discount all votes of people involved in the WP:EEML case and that this AfD is decided per the arguments of the uninvolved participants in this AfD. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That would be the sensible thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If votes are going to be discounted, then why shouldn't the nomination itself be discounted, seeing as the nominator is also one of the listed parties in the ArbCom case? Or, if the nom stands, the proper recommendation is to discount everyone "involved" in the case properly understood - including all those that *chose* to make lengthy edits and present "evidence" at the case pages. In other words, I agree with Jehochman above that more weight should be given to truly uninvolved parties like DGG and Allison (and of course, the other ones). In fact, on that note, I will personally withdraw my own vote.radek (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've adopted the nomination. The closing administrator may pretend that Russavia has posted nothing on this page, for the purposes of closing this AfD. Discount their vote too. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For great transparency these are the EEML arbitration case disputants who participated here. Notice how the mailing list members have tendentiously voted keep.

• Piotrus (talk · contribs) - KEEP, mailing list member
• jacurek (talk · contribs) - KEEP, mailing list member
• Miacek (talk · contribs) - KEEP, mailing list member
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs) - COMMENT (seems to argue keep temporarily), mailing list member
• Tymek (talk · contribs) - KEEP, mailing list member
• poeticbent (talk · contribs) - KEEP, the article subject who violates WP:COI by participating here, mailing list member
• Russavia (talk · contribs) - DELETE, not a list member, one of the chief antagonists of the group
• Biophys (talk · contribs) - KEEP, list member

But for the intervention of the mailing list members, this AfD is a slam dunk delete. Hopefully the Arbitration Committee members are clueful enough to notice what's going on here. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Slam dunk delete, you say? But, on whose votes? You Jehochman are a heavily involved user in EEML case with the flair for verbal attacks against mailing list members calling them "not very smart fish" recently.[2] Are you sure, they're not that smart? You yourself are smart enough however not to require tips in civility by anybody. At least one German user who voted to delete here is a vicious opponent of Polish Wikipedians regardless of who they are. Another new user specializes in Russia-related subjects and yet claims that EEML is news to him. And, there are of course Jehochman's own meat puppets, who have never appeared anywhere else around here yet follow his talk page religiously. The latest delete vote was cast by someone from Heidelberg. Does Germany ring a bell (per above)? I'd like to encourage the closing admin to please look at what is really happening here. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Heidelberg does not ring a bell. I live in Connecticut. If you see other disputants grinding their axes here, feel free to point them out as I have done. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not be listing monikers here as you have done because some of these individuals are not only my personal opponents, but also political provocateurs currently edit warring about Poland-related articles and engaging in personal attacks against virtually anybody connected with Portal Poland. I'm concerned about the possible impact on those who are genuinely innocent, and yet remain the focus of similar attacks. Enough already. --Poeticbent talk 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Err... wait a sec. Are you talking about me? How about assuming a bit of good faith? Why is the fact that I come from Heidelberg, Germany an issue for me voting here? You seem to imply that I am one of these vicious opponent of Polish Wikipedians, your personal opponent or political provocateur? Do you have any evidence for these suggestions, whatsoever? If you'd care to check my contributions you will realize that I hardly ever come across polish-related articles and even if I do, that doesn't make me a political provocateur or vicious opponent of Polish Wikipedians. Also, I am not one of Jehochman's meat puppets, neither do I watch his talk page and in fact I can not remember that our paths have ever crossed in the past. You can also rest assured that I am not orchestrating my edits with other like-minded editors in a secret mailing list. Btw, do you realize that the vast majority of the users that voted 'delete' are neither German nor involved in east european disputes? Must be also political provocateurs then? The fact that you suggest I am biased only on the grounds of me being German could in fact be considered racist. Why don't you check your facts next time you make such allegations and assume a bit of good faith. Thank you. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the "news to him" remark is a reference to my delete vote, although I don't recognise myself in the description as a "new user [who] specialises in Russia-related subjects", so who can tell. I specialise in visual art, I'm a member of the visual arts wikiproject, this AfD is listed as a visual arts deletion discussion.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have not attacked any of you. Please read what I said, word for word. I only remarked on the fact that where and how you choose to participate – especially in a highly politicized debate such as this – has implications. You both made a conscientious choice to cast your votes here. Rather than feeling offended for no reason, please keep an eye on the actions of those who preceded you, and follow the story, because none of us lives in a vacuum. I'm sorry you took it to heart like this in sheer innocence. --Poeticbent talk 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I've got no intention of following the labyrinthine convolutions of an arbitration hearing and have no interest at all in the result. Happy in my WP:BIO vacuum, Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have read what you said word for word, to make sure I don't create a fuzz for no reason. But still, I don't see any alternative interpretation. Please enlighten me. You were talking about biased voters, so for what other reason did you bring up that I am from Germany, if not for me being biased? Quote: "Germany ring a bell (per above)?" The only thing 'above' I can find is that you complain about some other German voter who you claim to be a vicious opponent of Polish Wikipedians. Obviously you are putting me in the same category ('ring a bell'), am I wrong? If so, why did you point out that I am from Germany and why does it ring a bell??? By the way, feel free to respond on my talkpage instead of here. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I commented agreeing that the article had not progressed and that I was disappointed. If you have an issue with my reasoning regarding allowing for some time to address once EEML closes (your temporarily), please be kind enough to address it on its merits. Do not discount my contribution based on perceived associations as diffs to your post will be pointed to in the future as Jehochman pointing out meatpuppetry by EEML members (on issues of more substance). I've already stated that sourcing needs to improve for the article to remain, but that the timing of the AfD was such as to inhibit work on improvement by editors most likely to do so. Should "delete" be the decision, I would ask that an editor volunteer to keep a copy in their user space to make the improvements I've suggested. Thank you. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Several EEML members are about to be sanctioned for editing abuses. The heavy participation of list members in this discussion appears consistent with the past pattern of unacceptable behavior. Deletion is no reflection of the subject of the article. Many virtuous people remain below the notability threshold for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, I don't see sufficient notability of the subject being established. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Relist after completion of EEML case. This is not a normal discussion because many participants have been accused of conspiracy by Jehochman at the arbitration pages.<Biophys (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of notability. I was very strongly considering voting "keep" just due most obvious bad faith of nomination, but in the end I don't see much point in another battleground AfD either. I would note that I am also somewhat involved in Eastern European articles, so I am not 100% uninvolved either.--Staberinde (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lack of notability and citations. We can compare the example of the AFD on David Shankbone--Caspian blue 15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, while extending full respect towards Poeticbent for accomplishments of which he should be justly proud. However, I can see no significant discussion of his self-published works or his particular contribution to the paid advertisements, and no real sourcing in this article outside of material published by organizations in which he has been somewhat involved; it is to the advantage of competitions to publish information about the competitors and their information is self-published by those organization. Unless there are sources in journals, magazines, books, newspapers, etc to discuss Tylman and his impact in some way, I do not feel that this article is justified under our inclusion guidelines. Full disclosure: I have followed much of the EEML Arbcom discussions, I have not read the archives, have no real opinion on the state of EE articles here because I haven't read them, and have done no significant work on any Eastern European article (I have done minor copyediting like tyop fixes on some as part of my work at FAC). My comments here are based solely on the article, its references, and the statements above. I also join the admonishment of Russavia for bringing this particular nomination at this time. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Tylman's team was given an Award of Excellence at Graphex (a notable competition). It seems to me that he satisfies WP:ANYBIO. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see ... in 2008, Graphex (an orphaned article) resp. the Society of Graphic Designers of Canada handed out about 20 Awards of Excellence, and most of them for advertising campaigns involving several contributors. In addition, Graphex handed out 65 Awards of Distinction and also 7 Judge's Choices, not counting the multiple winners of the contest - which means that all those other entrants are, well, losers. While the winners may be notable for Wikipedia (do they have articles?), the dozens of teams receiving a complimentary sheet of paper are not - and much less individuals contributing to such a team. And in that 1991 team, Richard Tylman was not even the designer, only the illustrator. So "The person has received a notable award or honor" seems not to be the case here. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage of the subject from any source online, and the piling up of all the sources that each have a trivial amount of detail doesn't amount to much. Google News and Google News Archives don't seem to have anything on him at all. If the nomination and some of the !votes appear to be bad faith, then the closing admin should ignore them (what a distasteful job to try to sort them out). DGG says "Keep" because of the circumstances of the nomination, but it's better to handle this as normally as we can. Tylman's website doesn't include a section on reviews of his work or mentions in the press, which I would expect from someone who is reviewed or covered in WP:RS-type sources. Although it doesn't look like a notable one under Wikipedia guidelines, its an impressive, varied career. If we had reason to believe that much better sourcing existed and was likely to be put in the article, I'd change to Keep. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about a "Press" section, but Tylman's website has at least one news article archived there. Somebody who is familiar with the Polish press will have to say whether Głos in Kraków (The Voice, I think) is a newspaper of any substance. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I stubbed the newspaper for pl wiki: pl:Głos - Tygodnik Nowohucki. It is a regional newspaper for Nowa Huta, tracing its history to early post-war Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, but relist after the ArbCom case closes. An unnecessary distraction. Stifle (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep Appears to meet WP:BIO. General concerns about retaliatory/Wikipolitical nature of this AfD are unfortunate and so I wouldn't object to another nomination later but it seems like they meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now per Stifle and DGG. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Arbcom clerk request to the closing admin - Due to the connection of this AFD with an ongoing ArbCom case, could the closing admin please alert me prior to delivering their verdict. (This is chiefly for my benefit in case management - I have no desire to effect a specific outcome.) Manning (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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.