Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Macklin (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 delete. Happy to revisit if preinternet sources found Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Macklin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. No better sources about the subject have been found since prior AfD and article creator says on the talk page they know of no better sources. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined speedy deletion of the article as a WP:CSD#G4 repost as the previous AfD was ages ago and the subject has done some additional work since then. However, all of the mentions seem to be minor, and insufficient to properly write a biography. So unless further secondary sources can be found, deletion is probably the best option (just not speedy deletion). —Kusma (t·c) 13:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, as the main author of the article I'll confirm that there seems to have been very little written about him that would qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia, unfortunately. (I can find lots that's been written about his character Bubsy for example, but very little of it actually mentions Macklin, despite the credits specifying him as the character's creator...) I thought the relative prominence of some of the wikipedia articles about his work would qualify as some measure of notability, just to have a page to tie it all together, but if not then so be it. I just hope this will be an actual deletion and not the redirect someone tried to make, so people can at least continue to search for his name across articles instead of being redirected to an arbitrary one of them. --Omgitsraven (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another example of a subject from the pre-Internet period where sourcing is primarily off-line. A GBooks search turns up a lot of references, few of which are available in more than snippet view. But this source [1], for example, gives a reasonably detailed account of one example of his work. This source [2] documents that Macklin was a Guest of Honor at a significant genre convention, indicating both stature in his field and typically indicating the existence of a program book containing a useful biography. He's almost certainly got work reviewed in comics print mags of the 1970s and 1980s, which are just not even minimally accessible online. ISFDB shows work included in two different World SF Con program books, another signal of stature in his field. There's too much evidence of notability do delete the article, even if it's not going to be east to access the sources needed to write a first-class article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the character he created qualifies as notable, then so too does the creator. Article could definitely use some work, though. But start-class quality is not, standing alone grounds for deletion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Nominator is not arguing to delete it due to being start-class, but because of a lack of sourcing to show WP:GNG is met (Among other policies). -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that there are no biographical sources available. The article was deleted 7 years ago because no one could find sources and no one can find sources on him now, not even the person who wrote the article. A redirect/merge to his principle work would be fine but GNG requires significant coverage of the person.
Right now this article is no different than any one of a dozen 'producers' who have nothing but their name on credits and we delete those out of hand. Even one decent biographical source would be enough to keep in this case but we need that one. Jbh ^Talk 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between "no biographical sources available" and "no biographical sources readily found online". And there's an even bigger difference between an investor who buys a producer credit on a film, and an actual creative person who shares the notability of the work they create. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any sources even identified for this person I would say keep but we do not keep biographies around just in case a source pops up. See WP:NRV - sources must at least be known to exist. Do you know of any? This same problem existed in the previous AfD and the article was deleted because of it. Jbh ^Talk 23:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've dug up a couple that might qualify: first, here is an excerpt from a book that discusses Macklin's experience being personally invited to a convention by the chair. It's just one section of a larger book about the convention, and while I can find other sites corroborating the book's existence I can't actually find a copy of the book myself, so I know it's a bit of a stretch, but I figured I'd at least mention it.. I've also found this interview with someone he worked with at LucasArts, that discusses Macklin's involvement in an early version of the project they worked on; would I be right that this would count as a secondary source (someone else discussing him) from a reliable publication (mixnmojo was already accepted as a source for his work on Thimbleweed Park)? --Omgitsraven (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is a potential good source it depends on if the book was published or is just a Convention flyer. The other is really just a passing mention. I spent quite a bit of time looking for biographical material. There are indexes to a lot of old comics etc that credit him and these are the kinds of publications that would have interviews/commentary but I could find nothing.

For a bit I hoped that this [3] might be him but he is a sculptor from Alberta - who incidentally has a bit of press coverage. The only thing I could find about the Ken Macklin who is the subject of the article is [4] which shows he has gotten into the self-help woo business. Lots of people like his work and mention him but only in the 'this is by Macklin', 'Macklin did good stuff', 'will Macklin ever come back' (There is/was a Kickstarter that intended to have him do some art).

I really do not think there is anything out there. Considering how often his name is brought up any existing biographical information would be noted. The comics wikis and the like do not even have blog quality write-ups on him. An admin would need to look at the old article but right now the article is probably a {{db-g4}} since nothing seems to have changed from the earlier AfD. Jbh ^Talk 14:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because we all know that if it's not covered in easily spotted online sources, it can't possibly be a worthwhile subject. That's why one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "If we can't find it in a cursory Google search, it's probably not worth knowing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and last AFD. I see some arguments that Bubsy is notable, but that would be inheritance. The sources brought up in this AFD appear to be trivial mentions, such as the Google book that discusses a pilot for Nickelodeon that simply mentions him as a creator and does not discuss him at all. I don't believe taking part in conventions shows notability either, thousands of comic book artists and writers do so. Whether easy to find or not, multiple reliable third party sources must exist to show notability. We can't hold on to the article because there might be sources... someone has to know of them. -- ferret (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Maniac_Mansion#Production_and_SCUMM, where he is mentioned by name. I read through the sources linked by the other editors above and none discussed the article subject in more than passing mention. There plainly aren't enough biographical sources to write more than a shoestring list of mentions. As for the current sourcing, there are lots of primary sources but no significant coverage about the artist himself, not even in the articles for which he is supposedly notable, so R to most notable mention on WP. czar 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. I really like his work and his style is instantly recognisable, but there simply does not appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources to build an encyclopedia article around. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's going to be deleted then so be it, but I'd still strongly recommend against making it into a redirect; none of these individual articles would be a useful stand-in for his body of work, and redirecting to any of them just makes it harder for people to search for the actual references to his work that would still be on Wikipedia. It makes more sense for people to search for him and see a list of his projects in search results, than to search for him and only see Maniac Mansion which he was barely involved with. --Omgitsraven (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maniac Mansion has the most direct mention of Macklin on WP. If he is better known for other work, I suggest adding sources to those articles that say as much. czar 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if anything he's more associated with Bubsy, and I'd always assumed he created the character but apparently that was Mike Berlyn. Shows how much I know. However, as far as I can tell his involvement with Maniac Mansion was apparently just painting the box art. It seems kind of weird to redirect it there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 1 November 2015 (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.