Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. Williams (3rd 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 delete. "Having sources" does not by default mean that an article topic is notable; as pointed out these sources need to satisfy certain criteria (such as independence and WP:SIGCOV) and the thrust of the discussion - both numerically and in terms of arguments being made addressing individual points - on the specific sources appears to indicate that they don't. Likewise no indication that WP:ARTIST is satisfied and mostly reasonable counterarguments e.g by DGG. The AfD descended into bickering a week or so ago but that doesn't change the outcome. A merge suggestion wasn't picked up, so going for delete here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Williams[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. last 2 AfDs were no consensus despite only 1 keep !vote last AfD LibStar (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient independent references provided that establish WP:GNG, whilst these are not mainstream newspapers etc, as a comic book artist most sources are always going to be comic industry related. In accordance with WP:GNG sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Dan arndt (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources already found satisfy WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Williams may have worked on some notable projects, but that does not automatically confer notability on him, especially not when it is unclear what his contribution to those projects was. Unless it can be verified that he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, he fails WP:CREATIVE. The one project where he verifiably did play a major role, The Legend of Spacelord Mo Fo is not notable, as it has not received significant critical attention from mainstream or specialized publications. Mduvekot (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per sources. Artw (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: I'm curious which sources in particular you think make this a strong keep. GCD and Lambiek are known for being the IMDB of comics and not reliable for much. Ditto for Amazon. Did you look at ref 1? It's user generated and doesn't even mention the subject's name, let alone his birthdate or partners. The Verve reference [4] doesn't even mention the subject. References 6 and 7 are for his collaborator on a comic that's not notable enough for its own article. Reference 8 shows his collaborator was on the Babylon 5 show. Reference 15 is self published. Ref 16 is quite possibly the silliest thing I've seen on a creator's article in recent memory. "He had a table at a convention." Those tables can be purchased by anyone and mean nothing in terms of notability. Refs 17 through 20 are proof of existence only. That leaves 9, 12, and 13, all of which are about the subject's web comic, not him. Maybe @Dan arndt: or @Unscintillating: could help explain? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as several of the listed sources are not to the levels of acceptable and convincing, I certainly know that listing Amazon.com is not; this could at best be improved, but with no actual improvements made, this is best Drafted at best, so as to remove from mainspace and perhaps moved again if ever better. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Amazon reference was simply there as evidence that the individual was the author of those particular books. If that's an issue can change it to another source. Interested to hear what improvements you consider need to be 'made'. Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - I found this to be "marginally notable" when I removed the {{notability}} tag back in May. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how this person meets notability. Rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trust my own judgement but I am unable to remember my reasoning from May. On re-review, I find [1] to be suitable evidence of notability but I know multiple sources are required to establish it. I have clarified that my !vote is a weak keep. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cite is "powered by WordPress" which is a blog site. Blogs are unreliable sources as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am unable to establish that this is a reliable source. I withdraw my keep vote. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I gave on the 2nd nom - sources are proof of existence, not evidence of notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, we have a number of assertions that the sources establish notability, but no specific sources cited. It would be most useful during this next week if people concentrated on evaluating specific sources, to show why they are, or are not, sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go Keep on this. It lists twenty separate sources, it's pretty well written and it informs people. On the off-chance someone wants to find out about this person, Wikipedia can tell them about him, in a neutral, verifiable way. That's a good thing. No harm done. delete I can't really turn up a good merge target, O apologies. I thought we had better lists. If one does turn up I'll do the right thing by the licence. Hiding T 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiding: Did you review the sources? Most of them don't even mention the subject. See my comment above for more detail. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They work for me. I'm failing to see your name in the edit history of the article, any reason why you haven't fixed the perceived issues? Why wasn't a merge and redirect considered? Hiding T 12:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping . And as argento says the quality of sources is questionable. The number of sources is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the article should be kept because it is reasonably well written and sourced and helps us serve our purpose. The sources verify the information provided. That's what we ask for. Hiding T 12:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiding: What do you mean by "They work for [you]"? Do you mean that they are functional websites, or that the content on them provides the information they're being used to cite? This source is used to cite "Williams was born in Armidale, New South Wales". Would you please copy/paste the section of the source that confirms this? Because all I see is a user-generated page that says "Barossa Studios comic book group" and, through a link, mentions Glenn Lumsden as an associate.

I found no viable merge target. The only page linking to this one (that isn't DAB or a list) is David de Vries (which also has questionable sources). If you find one that makes sense, name it and I'll be happy to reconsider.

"any reason why you haven't fixed the perceived issues?" My 'perceived issue' is that no notable sources discuss David G Williams. A quick google search turned up self-published sources and/or user-generated sources. The fix is to delete the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below for suggested merge solution. Hiding T 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what Argento said earlier. I doubt you have even looked at the sources.

you look at ref 1? It's user generated and doesn't even mention the subject's name, let alone his birthdate or partners. The Verve reference [4] doesn't even mention the subject. References 6 and 7 are for his collaborator on a comic that's not notable enough for its own article. Reference 8 shows his collaborator was on the Babylon 5 show. Reference 15 is self published. Ref 16 is quite possibly the silliest thing I've seen on a creator's article in recent memory. "He had a table at a convention." Those tables can be purchased by anyone and mean nothing in terms of notability. Refs 17 through 20 are proof of existence only. That leaves 9, 12, and 13, all of which are about the subject's web comic, not him.

LibStar (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources. I've got no problem merging the article, but it can't be done while the afd is on. If only someone had done it instead of nominating for deletion we wouldn't need to be here. You doubt I looked at the sources, I doubt you have read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Hiding T 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really looked at the sources? So did you pick that some don't refer to the article subject and others wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. Of course I've read the deletion policy asking me about that is merely trying to deflect from your non examination of sources. None of your comments actually refer to any of the specific sources provided which is why it is natural to draw the conclusion you hadn't looked at actual sources. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment it's plainly obvious that 2 of the 3 keep voters here have not even looked at the sources and the Relisting comment was done on the basis to allow keep !voters to examine the sources. One keep voter has now withdrawn his vote. Don't think more needs to be said about the strength of the keep arguments. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote, and I'd question whether those commenting to delete have considered a merge, which should call into question their opinions. Hiding T 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments for keep are being called into question and you still haven't referred to specific sources. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I realise that this is typical of your approach at AFDs, bullying and harassing editors who disagree with your point of view but in this case some of us consider that the article is worth keeping. Dan arndt (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

saying an editor is "bullying and harassing " is a personal attack. If an editor claims to have read sources in an article up for AfD I expect them to justify that and not pretend it. Your personal attack has been noted for future reference. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect anything less from you based on your past behaviour. Dan arndt (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your above statement sounds like you feel justified in making clear personal attacks. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the fact you have to use a personal attack to somehow sway the keep argument back in favour says it all. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an observation, which anyone can check by looking at your past history. Dan arndt (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An "observation " is not a defence for a personal attack. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if I have a history of bullying and harassment take it up at WP:ANI. I'm guessing you won't. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I'm not particularly interested in you or your behaviour and will leave it up to other editors to make up their own minds. Dan arndt (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you make an accusation of "bullying and harassment" and won't back it up? That's clearly a personal attack. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beyond getting involved in your obvious baiting. Dan arndt (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made an obvious personal attack which you have tried to pretend it's an "observation" LibStar (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiding: is there a specific target article you'd propose to merge this material into? ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My memory may not be what it was, best I can do is List of American comics creators, which could maybe take a section on foreign authors that have worked on US Comics. I thought we had better lists than that, but it may be they've gone, the Canadian ones have been redirected. It wouldn't be too much work to make the list better serve the purpose of holding stub articles. Hiding T 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a logical merge target but am interested to see what Hiding suggests. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're describing List of comics creators. I guess I wouldn't resist if his name were added, but I'd prefer to see some evidence of notability first. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see any indications of notability. The sources in the articles are primary / non RS / give a trivial mention, and I'm not finding anything better on the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of what you consider to be a "trivial mention". Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I would prefer you provide an example of a non-trivial mention, as requested in my comment above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument you seem to indicate that this is a hoax made up on three continents. Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see evidence of any specific particular important work, just contributions of unspecified importance to various works for whichothers have the primary a responsibility. Appearing at a convention is not enough for notability in any field whatever. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 27 August 2016 (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.