Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Stephens

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stephens[edit]

non-notable comic strip artist Oo7565 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails wp:creative, wp:bio. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: it's a stub. Jack and Jill was a notable British kid magazine. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am hard-pressed to believe that an artist working on two extremely long-running comics magazines cannot pass WP:N. As the magazines ended in the 80s, Google is a poor resource to use here - it will require resorting to (*gasp*) print. But it is very difficult to believe that this subject would not pass WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Phil Sandifer. It looks like it has the potential to be a solid well-rounded article but will take time and effort. (Emperor (talk))
Weak Delete Sandifer has a point, but the speculation about the availability of reliable sources to write a good article does not to me equate to the existence of reliable sources with which to write a good article, and I have seen no evidence of such. THF (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Phil Sandifer. Edward321 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2009 (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.