Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Coggins

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 of the debate was Kept due to community concensus and withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Coggins

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." - Eagle^talk 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Eagle^talk 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable for the awards he received, but the article needs to be de-hagiographized. Sandstein 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. An extremely frivolous and boorish nomination. The nominatior didn't even bother to check the notability of the person. Time to read wikipedia artice about google before proceeding to editing wikipedia. mikka (t) 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the originator of the article on Jack Coggins Jack Coggins was a very well known artist and writer - checking Google will show the number of references to his works. Someone who has produced so many books, paintings & illustrations surely deserves a place in an encyclopedia. The information given is all factual and supported by documentation. A quick scan of Coggins's work on the referenced web site may indicate the breadth and effect of his works. Dcoggins.
Comment Sounds notable for awards and galleries where he is represented. However, author is user:Dcoggins and article is too subjective in present form. Is there any non-relative who could de-memoralise the article?--Porturology 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He obviously has a list of achievements, and shows up more on the web then just here. This page is definatly worth keeping.
Weak keep, his awards looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - you can't toss an article about an obviously notable person (16,000 google hits, awards in his field) just because it was created for unencyclopedic reasons. Some people just have friends or relatives who are notable...the fact that they also know how to use wikipedia doesn't make said friends or relatives non-notable all of a sudden. NPOV it, of course, though. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, nomination does not cite valid claim for deletion; subject of article is conspicuously notable as published author/artist. Monicasdude 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Funky Monkey 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mikka and others. Vslashg (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though in need of a cleanup.--Isotope23 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it would be nice if the External Links contained legitimate references instead of his family's memorial website for him. That sort of thing is what tends to trigger AfD notices like this. Fan1967 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. He has an entry on Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online so is notable enough. I have added a cleanup tag to this - key issues to be addressed are NPOV (article refers to Jack throughout) and verifiable third party sources as per WP:V. Capitalistroadster 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Dcoggins Obviously I am a novice at Wiki - I have tried to "de-personalise" the article. Jack Coggins was an associate of Fletcher Pratt, Chesley Bonestell, L. Sprague de Camp and other sci-fi notables of the 50s, many of whom have entries here, so there is a precedent.
Keep Article seems to focus on subject's career, not his death... so the "memorial" reasoning isn't justified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Dcoggins I have now added some independent external website references and a bibliography of some of his work. Dcoggins 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've obviously put in a lot of work and significantly improved the article. Good work. A warning: don't be surprised if other people do some copy editing. That's Wikipedia. Fan1967 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the comments. I have added more references and internal links, plus some print sources (if this is appropriate?). I am learning fast and refining the article as I go along. Yes, I expect that there will be editing by others. Dcoggins 05:51, 15 March 2006 (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.