Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Cope (cartoonist)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cope (cartoonist)[edit]

Fails WP:CREATIVE. While I am sure he's a very likable person, this author/cartoonist has won no notable awards nor made contributions which have been written about in reliable sources. His latest book has only one other possible reliable source [1] that I found other than the one listed in the article. The other sources listed in the article consist of three primary sources and a blog. I think it's doubtful at this point that even the book would pass WP:NB. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Some serious issues with the sources, they are mostly his site and a blog. Non-notable. --Banime (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the original author of this article, I appreciate your concerns and am willing to discuss them with you. I also apologize if I have incorrectly created this article, for I have never created one before. I did make an honest attempt to present all of the information using neutral language (i.e., only facts), and so if the wording needs to be changed, any suggestions (or revisions) would be welcomed and appreciated. Regarding the sources in question ... Editor & Publisher and The Daily Cartoonist are respected and reliable sources of news regarding professional cartoonists. If there is a mininum number of "reliable sources" required, please let me know. Additional sources can be provided, including a link to a recent audio interview. Regarding notable awards and contributions ... I've seen that other cartoonists on Wikipedia do not list any notable awards, nor cite articles reporting contributions, and so I wasn't aware that this was a requirement. These articles also do not cite any information sources. For example ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Kolarov ... Would it be more appropriate to mark my article as a "stub" like the previous example? Again, I do apologize and I'm willing to address any additional questions or concerns. TheYellowKid (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have a specifically defined meaning in our encyclopedia, I recommend that you read the guideline behind the link. While Editor & Publisher does qualify under the guideline, "The Daily Cartoonist" is a blog and as such typically does not qualify. The other sources you have listed are all primary sources and can't be used to determine notability (though they can be used to verify information in an otherwise notable article). More importantly, the material only discusses the book- the author is only mentioned in passing. In other words no reliable sources at all have been submitted to verify the notability of Mr. Cope. I hope this addresses your question. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was at least mentioned by secondary sources. More notable than many persons who have WP bios. No reason to delete, no problems with article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability was ever established, no accomplishments or notable awards, blogs as sources are not reliable. Twkratte (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 27 September 2008 (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.