Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Emslie

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 per discussion below Nick (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Emslie[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)

Non-notable animator. I can't find any sources that discuss him or his works in depth and the worldcat results are largely unrelated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrator, not animator from the looks of things, but agree delete for non-notability Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not appear that there is enough comprehensive discussion on them in reliable sources to support an article, or an argument for notability either under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Waggie (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any additional sources. The search results page of Worldcat is certainly not enough to justify an article. Fails WP:BIO. Brad v 00:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not know how the nominator looked for sources, but the first hit in Google News is an extensive article about him in the Los Angeles Times.[1] I added it to the article. It's . Reading it, I think it alone is enough. Chrissymad, please take a look at it. And the Worlcat links are not unrelated--they're books of which heis the illustrator. There are reviews of a number of them also, and they all mention him. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm completely misreading that source, but that looks like an article about Dave Smith in which it mentions an illustration of him "...with Donald Duck that was made by artist Peter Emslie". I see no other reference to Emslie in that article. DGG, could you please check that article again and confirm my reading of it? Thank you. Waggie (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental: I checked the first 30 results on WorldCat very carefully looking for reviews or journalistic coverage of Peter Emslie and his works. The only thing that I see is the abstracts submitted by the publishers and a few brief user-contributed reviews from Goodreads.

I also note that a number of results are writings by different people. eg: this book where two of the authors are Peter Roach and John Emslie, and this where a completely different Peter Emslie writing about a land survey in the 1800s, and this, written by Sarah Emslie, published by Ryland Peters & Small. Waggie (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the source. You are completely correct. I seem to have seen what i hoped to see. Agreed that the reviews are unsubstantial. I've changed to Delete. DGG ( talk ) 11:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG For what it's worth when I first found that source (which I did well before I nominated) I thought it was going to be a great piece about him, as it turns out, not so much...I did a lot of digging in papers too and found nothing worthwhile. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nothing substantial found . DGG ( talk ) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find substantial coverage either. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any secondary sources. The article has been here for 14 years and just recently got it's first attempt at a source, and that's not really even a source, just a search result.Jacona (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, passing mentions in a few sources (including Mouse Planet) further cements this as a delete for me. JC7V-constructive zone 03:56, 7 September 2018 (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.