Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amby Paliwoda (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amby Paliwoda[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)

Can't see this meeting WP:NBIO. As a creative professional? Has been deleted after a previous discussion, now recreated ~~by an editor with a close personal connection~~. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian, excuse me? Strike the close personal connection comment, or show me something in my family tree of which you're aware but I'm not. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. One of the older editors referred to Amby as their father and I mistook who reinstated the article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking :) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG and creative person guidelines for work in animation now. The article was not "recreated" but expanded and rewritten after neither participant in the original AfD checked vintage newspapers for coverage, no one added coverage from Google Books, uncited info was removed, and one participant bemoaned not finding anything because they would have liked to have seen the article kept. It's a different article now than it was before. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging Mccapra and Johnpacklambert, as they were the only two participants in the other AfD, but I'm going to ask that they consider holding off voting for a day or two because I want to go to a university library to search for an obit in Variety and other entertainment publications that I don't currently have access to at home; such things could help the notability case. As the article stands now, it is much different than it was when I asked it to be draftified to me for further research. Mccapra, I found a couple of articles from the late 1970s (which picked up by other newspapers around the country and not just local to California). John, I know this is better sourced than when you nominated it. I doubt you would have nominated it if it had been in this shape when you came across it, but that is neither here nor there and you may vote as you like or not vote at all. I hope to get to the university tomorrow and I'll let you all know either way whether I find anything and I'll add it to the article. I'll do a bit more digging in newspaper databases as well. Another note: Disney fan sites talk about Paliwoda's work on 101 Dalmatians specifically, but I can't source that from any books or other reliable sources yet, so I have removed it from the article. OK. Peace. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find an obituary, unfortunately. There was a little bit of coverage of him in an entertainment database, but most were brief mentions in articles about the work of Duck Soup Producktions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just do not have the level of sourcing to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is inaccurate and thus the vote is not aligned to policy. The article is well-sourced and all the sources of are of quality. I reviewed it and saw that the one unsourced thing was the information that he was a founding member of the animators' union, so I removed it. It is now 100% sourced. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: If it's to be a delete, please draftify to me. I'd like to keep it on ice and check for more sources periodically. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was wondering why there is such low participation here... I just noticed that this 2nd AfD is listed in deletion sorting lists for only the subject's birth state and actors and filmmakers. That is fewer than the previous AfD. We know more about the subject now. Last time it was in: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, California, and Ohio. It should be in all of those and in a list for artists, if there is one. Should get at least a full week in those deletion sorting lists so it can get enough eyes and researchers on it. I will try to figure out how to add to these later, unless someone beats me to it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced. Maybe a before would have helped. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was much more detail in the cited articles that had not been added to the page. I have worked on the article, adding in missing data, and I think it is now viable. Obviously, more work could be done, and I hope to get to that. Lamona (talk) 18:56, 2 April 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.