Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McConville

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. ✗plicit 11:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McConville[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, awards fall short of WP:ANYBIO. In addition to searching a thorough WP:BEFORE for McConville himself, I just spent the better part of 30 minutes looking for sources to establish notability for Three Panel Soul, a webcomic of McConville's that I like very much. I came up short, as the one example of really substantial coverage, which is cited at this page, sadly appears to be published as byline-less PR in an industry publication website ([1]). Even if I'm wrong about CBR, however, there just isn't enough coverage of McConville to meet GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there is insufficient evidence to prove that either of his webcomics are notable for the purpose of WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The lack of a byline is indeed odd, but the CBR review otherwise looks solid. There is also this article on Daily Dot. The WCCA wins establish further notability. I cannot confirm this, but it seems like the 2014 book Comics through time : a history of icons, idols, and ideas also mentions the author. The Slime Rancher credit through Vice is yet another point of notability. I believe notability is comfortably established. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two things that worry me about the CBR coverage, on top of the missing byline, is that they openly solicit PR submissions and it's not marked as a "REVIEW: ", which seems to be the case for their (bylined!) critical coverage (e.g. [2], [3]). Another red flag is that despite being credited to "CBR Staff", the article is written in first-person singular, suggesting either a commissioned piece that the author did not want to take credit for or a pre-written PR statement that was published without oversight. Moreover, I don't think that CBR's coverage is enough to establish McConville's notability--if we have a consensus that CBR's coverage is ok to use, in my view that would license an article on Three Panel Soul, which could be a redirect target for Ian McConville, but we lack even the most basic biographic information about McConville himself and I don't think it's appropriate to write an article on him based on the coverage I have seen so far. I had come across the Daily Dot coverage in my prior search, and would consider that to also be coverage of TPS that provides no independent information about McConville (and rather little about TPS either, it's mostly about Alzheimer's). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For these reasons, I stand by my "delete". @Artw:, what do you say re: the site accepting PR submissions? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To any other user I'd say "CBR isn't a source is obvious nonsense" and to you I'd say "TPH has a widely recognised pattern of untruthfulness in order to bolster weak deletions and cannot be trusted on the assessment of any source." - I;d also direct you to your talk page. Artw (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you have extremely one-sided records at AfD and it's frankly tiring to see almost every AfD I come across get derailed into this same fight. Can we focus on the article for once? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting if somewhat misleading and point-missing metric. Here's you.[4] But to get back to this article: No I am not convinced by the argument that CBR isn't a source, nor am I convinced by the argument that deletion is the way to get to rearrange the content into a Three Panel Soul article that doesn't currently exist - deletion is the way to get to deleted articles. Just as I'm suspicious of novel arguments why a source doesn't count I am also not convinced by arguments that a source for a work inherently cannot be a source for it's creator - frequently they are both the same thing. That this kind of argument seems to mainly come up in hair splitting efforts to squeak a deletion makes me even more suspicious of it. Artw (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments aren't hair-splitting, they're a description of my WP:BEFORE process; as I'm actually familiar with the subject in question prior to coming across it on Wikipedia, I did a thorough search for every possible topic that could help eke out notability for the main subject at-issue here. In my view, my search came up short, so it behooves me to describe it here. I'm also not sure what you're hoping to show by invoking my AfD record--with an 85% match rate despite only coming to AfD when my NPP work brings me here, which means no pile-on votes to help pad my stats, I'm quite happy with my track record. If you think it outs me as a deletionist, take a look at the articles that I check off as reviewed that I don't bring to AfD. Behind the ~700 articles I've nominated for deletion are 10s of thousands of articles I've checked off as worthy of inclusion, and this is while exclusively working from the back of the queue that collects all of the difficult borderline cases that other reviewers have chosen to pass on. Quite frankly, if you think I'm a deletionist, you don't know who you're talking to. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly vote on articles I have researched and added sources to, for the most part when I have not added sources I comment or do not vote, so I am not sure what you are hoping to show by invoking *MY* AfD record. Maybe we should consider that tool a party trick instead of something useful, eh? Artw (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, Comic Book Resources is an extremely long standing comics news, reviews and commentary site that has won multiple Eisners and carried columns by top names in the industry. Dismissing it as a PR mill is shoddy work. Artw (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you could se your AfD statistics like this; this is so cool, thank you!! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, merge in content re: Mac Hall and Three Panel Soul from Mac Hall. Artw (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three-panel soul would probably be the most notable topic, as it receives more coverage from the reliable sources. However, it is minimal coverage nonetheless, and I fail to see why the author should warrant more of an article than his work.CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article on an artist is often a good way to write about someone with multiple smaller credits, in my experience. His work on Mac Hall, Three Panel Soul, and Slime Rancher are all relevant to the same subject: himself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED, an artist is not necessarily notable because their works are notable, although in this case neither is true and you cannot combine notability from multiple works to form one article about all the works. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think INHERIT applies in the way you suggest it does. A book doesn't inherit notability from a notable author and an author doesn't inherit notability from a notable book. That sort of situation is covered in INHERIT. However, in this case, Mac Hall and Three Panel Soul are not notable, so it doesn't even make sense to suggest that McConville "inherits" notability from those. I'm saying that someone whose various projects have been covered by multiple sources is notable, even if we have relatively little biographical information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough quality sources about the subject to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: less sniping, more policy based arguments please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All mentions and no substantive content with which we can write an article worthy of the subject. Mac Hall/Three Panel Soul doesn't work as a redirect target as that article is likely to be merged or deleted as well. These topics need more dedicated, reliable, secondary source coverage about the subject. czar 03:38, 26 July 2022 (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.