Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. I think the "delete" arguments here are stronger than the "keep" arguments and there are

WP:BLP concerns as well. The only ref that might establish notability was the "National Young Writers Festival" bio, which is now a 404 error (the page does not exist in their database). And, I cannot tell if he is being sarcastic or serious, he may not want an entry here - [1]. Mr.Z-man 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrick_Alexander_(cartoonist)

AfDs for this article:
Patrick_Alexander_(cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Bio of non-notable subject. Fails all measures of notbaility for people 218.143.102.89 11:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above: fails all measures of notability for people and this is unlikely to ever change. 218.143.102.89 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix miscreated 2nd nomination to use a 2nd nomination page. KTC 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not entirely convinced that the subject of the article is non-notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you see anything to indicate he is notable? i said 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing here that shows he is a notable cartoonist. i said 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This cartoonist has been nationally published in Australia since 2001. He has a definite cult following here. I own print copies of much of his work. He is absolutely notable. 203.221.239.88 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sadly, being nationally published in no gauge of notability. The Wikipedia notability for people guidelines are set out (as linked to above) and the subject fails them all. 219.112.189.202 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are a few of the measures of notability Patrick Alexander meets:

The person has demonstrable wide name recognition - has been advertised as a guest at National Australian festivals and conventions, including Supanova and the National Young Writers Festival.

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. - Ledger Awards nomination.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - In Australia, Patrick Alexander's children's comics have a significant and provable cult following. DollyD 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was hoping to avoid this, but it appears you're neglecting to follow the link to the guidlines for notability of people. Here they are:
Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Fail
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Fail
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Fail
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. Fail (Not sure the Ledger Awards qualify as siginifant crtical acclaim, and he didn't actually win anything.)

With respect, your gauge of notability is yours alone. The Wikipedia guidlines are there to measure what has a place in this encycopedia, and this article doesn't. 218.143.102.89 11:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I believe that Patrick Alexander does meet a number of the general guidelines for notability. As for the specific Creative professionals guidelines, he is regarded as an important figure and widely cited by not only by his peers (the general cartooning community in Australia as a perusal of industry discussion board Pulp Faction will show - http://forums.pulpfaction.net/), but also a definite cult fanbase. DollyD 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The general guidelines keywords are: "Significant coverage" "Reliable" "Sources" and "Independent of the subject." I'd argue that what you cite falls far short of "significant coverage." Nor do the sources you mention meet the "reliability" guidlines. An internet cartoon message board cannot be regarded as, or relied upon as a secondary published source of information on the subject. Reliable secondary sources are expected to be multiple in number. There are currently none. All works cited are those in which the subject was published. Multuple secondary sources independent of the subject are lacking, and I believe will be unable to find. With regard the cult fanbase point, this is a faily meaningless piece of point-of-view original research, and irrelevant when trying to establish notability with regards the general, and person-specific, guidlines. This will be my last word on the matter as it's a faily obvious case of a lack of notability, and explaining precisely why is rather tiresome. 218.143.102.89 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel some measures of notability are met 203.220.106.203 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would be helpful to give details (baring in mind the Wikipedia guidlines - not just gut feeling), as so far there is no evidence to support your claim. 218.143.102.89 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable. Published =/= notable. Wikipedia is not a reference guide for all the published authors in the world. The Ledger Awards are not recognized as significant by anyone except the people who invented them. (In fact, if the Ledger Awards have a Wikipedia article it should probably be deleted too.) 220.148.66.146 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retain In Australia, Alexander is still best known for Pink Chickens. He is a professional and well-known comics artist (there aren't that many in Australia), best known for work in kids' magazines. 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.187 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again this amounts to no more than "He is notable becuase he did this." If you plan to vote keep please try to address the points raised above. 219.112.189.202 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Because he did this." seems a reasonable argument, given that the field is Australian comics. Alexander is a creative professional, is an important figure in Australian comics (influencing some who have appeared in the scene since) and he displays a distinctive style blending Western and manga cartoon influences. The question probably comes down to whether Australian comics are significant. 17 September 2007
          • That wouldn't be the question at all. While he may or may not be a talented artist, I think as an obvious fan, you're overplaying all aspects of the subject's notability. I'm not familiar with his work, but I've seen in passing over the years many styles blending western and manga. That could never be considered a unique selling point. Perhaps twenty years ago, but now? 218.143.102.89 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I meant is that Alexander is a significant figure in Australian comics, but maybe the field itself isn't of international importance. FWIW, I'm not a particular fan of Alexander, but I am very familiar with the whole comics scene in Australia (where I live), and it would diminish Wikipedia's content in this area to remove this entry. I take your point about the blending of Western and manga styles, but Alexander was among the first in Australia and he did it in a cartoony style, unique then and still unusual. He remains well known among kids of a certain age. 18 September
  • Two Secondary sources citing Patrick Alexander

- OzComics Magazine no. 1 - Information about Patrick Alexander in the major Australian comics magazine, edited by Darren Close and Mark Selan.

- TiN Radio - Patrick Alexander was interviewed in September 2005. I'll add information and references to the article soon. DollyD 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure how these two examples are meant to meet any of the measures of notability detailed above. If these are the best examples available (and I suspect they may be) then it appears a lost cause. The rules are there precisely to prevent people who have seen minor publication and / or radio appearences from swelling the encyclopedia. If that was enough to deserve an article I'm sure several thousands of people who have seen similar 'coverage' would be knocking up their own articles. 218.143.102.89 14:07, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Alexander_(cartoonist)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138208725"