Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Adamowicz

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Adamowicz ‎[edit]

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

While it is sad that this man, a concept artist for a major games company died, enough time has now passed to allow a detached evaluation of weather this article should be on the wiki. Prior to Adamowicz' death in 2012, this diff shows how the article stood: a stub linking to a development diary and a note suggesting at the time the article perhaps did not meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines.

Now, the article is little more than a memorial page pulling info from tribute pages. The tribute pages, including one from the company he worked for, seem better placed than the wiki to tell people about who this artist was. While there are a few news articles, it would seem largely created around the time of his death, I do not believe the artist meets the definition of the notability guidelines. Thus, this discussion for deletion.

Regards, Tempaccount040812 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituaries in the NYT and elsewhere are ample evidence of notability. Andrew (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I recognize that NYT is a reliable source, it does seem that most coverage about this artist is coming from obituaries. Surely more is needed to warrant an article to meet the "Significant coverage" category, not to mention the notability article cautions "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

This returns to the point that the page, is largely a memorial page sourcing from obituaries and other memorials, rather than an article detailing why this artist is notable.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries are typically about a person's life, not their death. They are ideal sources for our purposes because they summarise their entire life rather than focussing upon some particular news event. Andrew (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability and WP:NOT. Google search shows info is coming from obits and blogs. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malke 2010 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's already two reliable sources with significant coverage. Therefore, he is notable generally. This stub needs work, but that's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think the New York Times obit is a valid source. I'm impressed with the artist's work. However, I don't see significant coverage of this artist before his death and I really looked for it. I appreciate that he was very good at what he did and the fans certainly think highly of his work, but unless there's a wider notability, I can't see changing my ivote. As the nominator stated, this article is more a tribute and would be more suitable for a fan website, than a Wikipedia article. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous artists were not recognised until after they died — Van Gogh, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec &c. Coverage during the artist's life is therefore not required. Andrew (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Wikipolicy regarding artistis? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if many artists are not recognized until after they have died (This borders on an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, by the way), the question remains, has Adamowicz received any coverage outside of the single event of his death? For example, following his death, has any more coverage occurred? While obituaries may contain a lot of useful information about his life, that merely satisfies verifibility. Notability needs something more. It doesn't appear that he got coverage before or after his death, everything links to the single event. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, having a Times obit is proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. After re-reading the 'significant coverage' rule, that seems to apply more to a one-time event. This fellow left his mark on these games. He was well-known in his circle, which means he had high visibility there. We have articles on writers and actors most people wouldn't recognize, but they were known among fans, critics, etc. I'm changing my ivote. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2014 (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.