Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Dayton

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. This is a marginal case, but essentially the arguments put forward by scope_screep and others clarify why writing a significant encyclopedia article about this subject is not possible. However, I am happy to userfy or draftily the content on request. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Dayton[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tenuous notability. scope_creep^Talk 00:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work being an AML finalist and being on the 2011 YALSA Top Ten list is the "critical attention" per WP:AUTHOR that qualifies his page as notable. The Utah Museum of Contemporary Art had an event spotlighting his work in Making Faces. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.[reply]

The note to closing admin was not mine, but after looking it up this is very significant. @Rachel Helps (BYU): would you mind clarifying your COI here? The article creator Cstickel(byu) literally says on their user User:Cstickel(byu) page that you are (or is it were) their boss. --- Possibly

Hi, User:Possibly, yes, that is accurate. One of my student employees created the page. I'm fine with taking some of the information and making a separate book page, but I thought I would try to argue for it not being deleted. I hoped our institutional affiliations would be easy to see via our usernames and talk pages. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)☎ 02:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. IMHO that's just not enough, niche awards/recognition all for one comic. Arguably his comic may be notable, but he himself isn't, WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Sadly we don't have an entry for Green Monk to redirect his article there; I'd suggest closing this as, hmmm, rewrite into a Green Monk article, IFF there consensus the comic itself is notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is a borderline case and I could be satisfied by the rewrite-into-Green Monk strategy, but I lean towards keeping the author article. The rest of his career may be less pinnacley but it provides context for the more notable stuff. Thmazing (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references aren't there to support an article, and idea of being nominated as against winning, has never held sway in the particular industry in the subject is in. You see it with bands and actors all the time, putting up nomininated, nominated and so on, but the industry itself doesn't give it relevance, and we shouldn't either. The Utah Museum event was a collaborative effort with six others, again showing he doesn't have enough standalone weight. He's had quite a long career, and you would expect something to immediately stand out, but it isn't there. It tenuous. It would be ideal, if the comic was notable, to get rid and rewrite. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current sourcing is terrible: e.g. "Cali Claptrap: Integral Conversations (Podcast)". It is also a patchwork of being shortlisted for a minor award, or appearing in an obscure comics magazine, or the aforementioned Cali Calptrap podcast. We need real coverage to prove notability. I did a search and found nothing of note in news, books or web. As Scope Creep says, The references aren't there to support an article. --- Possibly ☎ 02:48, 23 October 2021 (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.