Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Timson

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 Keep. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Timson

Non-notable artist. ScottNestle 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom. —Centrx→talk 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matt Timson is a professional illustrator who has had work published in (IIRC) The Guardian, The Observer and Radio Times amongst other publications. He also has worked prolifically for American and Canadian clients. It should be noted that the deletion proposal of this entry from ScottNestle is a personal one, as he narrowly escaped legal proceedings for defamation of character against Timson, for which at the time was made to publicly apologise for. Scott is a prolific Internet 'troll', who holds stalker-like grudges against published writers and artists due to bitterness over his failure in the field himself.

Again, I'd urge care in slinging around insults. I know the Scott Nestel that you are referring to well (hell, a quick Google search would tell me anyway), but you can't prove that this is the same individual. It could just be a coincidence of there being 2 people with virtually the same name. Vizjim 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In another deletion proposal ScottNestle said the reason he was proposing dozens of small press-related entries for deletion (even when they have other notable claims to be kept) is "because I consider them inherently non-notable. ScottNestle 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" This shows a fundamental (and wilful?) misunderstanding of the British small press comics scene. Granted you can run off a self-produced comic on a photocopier and call it a comic but the small press publications that he has worked for are anthologies and so can have their pick of who works for them especially when it comes to artists who tend to get commisioned to do the work on accepted scripts. To top that Matt has also been commisioned to produce the covers of a number of publications. The only real grounds for non-notability for the small press would be on circulation which misses their importance for the British (and international) comic industry as breeding grounds for new talent. (Emperor 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If the notability of small press titles is judged by their importance in breeding notabletalent, surely they should only be added once they have actually generated that talent? Also on top of that you;re listing people who are otherwise non-notable because they are affiliated with a publication that MIGHT make them notable and then assert their own notability... It's a bit of a wobbly house of cards isn't it? ScottNestle 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Emperor. Tevildo 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I agree that the artist is not as notable as many others out there, the article is well formed for a stub and fits well within it's network of pages. It also can be interesting and informatative to those interested in the topic. I see no harm in keeping it, especially if it is referenced with another source or two.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallsend (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. ScottNestle has turned out, as you'll see from examining his talk page, to be a sockpuppet for Artw, who is Arthur Wyatt (comics). In what looks like an attempt to get his own entry deleted, for whatever reason, he put up a whole bunch of related pages for deletion at the same time. Vizjim 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this looks to be a bad-faith nomination. Yamaguchi先生 08:05, 29 June 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.