Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sols

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. Tan ǀ 39 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sols

Sols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Was listed for speedy deletion under A-7, but A-& is for articles where importance is not asserted, not for articles where notability is in question. The article asserts importance for the subject in stating the person produces a comic strip. Therefore I removed the speedy tag but feel honour bound to bring the article here. Suggest it needs better sourcing, but if the person in question is a newspaper comic strip artist, see no reason why we should not have an article on the person in question, be it a stub or a small but well written article. Hiding T 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO particularlly WP:CREATIVE. lacks any independent sources to establish notability. Even if the comic strip is notable, case for merging this person into comic strip article. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If you are looking for a merge then a simple redirect would solve the issue and we wouldn't need to be here. Deletion is not the solution to every problem with an article. Have you done the necessary research to discern if the person does indeed fail WP:BIO or are you basing it on the text in the article? And notability is a tremendously subjective topic for discussion. What we should really be debating, in all these sorts of debates, is whether we are here to replicate Britannica or to push the boundaries. Whether we are here to inform and serve, or to censor. Are we abolishing the elite, or simply replacing it? Wikipedia was set up to avoid the traps of previous encyclopedia, why are we now seeking to import their problems? Have we lost sight of our original intentions? Hiding T 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My strong preference is delete. As another admin once told me, the onus is on those wanting to retain an article or info should justify it, not those challenging it. Being an Australian with some interest in comics I've never heard of this person or this comic strip. In fact, it could almost be verging on the artist using Wikipedia as an self advert. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict. Comment by Michellecrisp above has been amended since this reply> The other admin was merely offering an opinion, not speaking the gospel truth. The onus is on doing the right thing. The comic strip has been collected in the past, and the author has an entry at Lambiek, [1] and the dictionary of Australian artists, [2]. I've never heard of such and such is not the best argument to make in a deletion debate, as per WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Hiding T 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the contribution history of the creator of this article, I would suggest MichelleCrisp strike her comment regarding self promotion, which could be seen as libellous and is certainly ill-advised. Hiding T 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the creator in particular. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making an unfounded accusation against the subject of the article, which I believe you should retract unless you have proof to the otherwise. Hiding T 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply this person fails WP:CREATIVE, I don't see how they have met:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries

Simply being a comic artist of a newspaper is not sufficient. the person in question is a newspaper comic strip artist, see no reason why we should not have an article on the person in question is not a criterion for WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. There needs to be a substantial and well documented recognition of achievement. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Person does not fail WP:CREATIVE, as my recent edits to the article will show. The artist has been the subject of an exhibition, and is credited as the "first new Australian comic since the 1930's" and also as "the start of a different era in Australian cartooning" by the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. I apologise that you have never heard of this person, but, as I said earlier, did you base your opinion on the text of the article or upon the research you performed? Hiding T 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that your edit history reveals a liking for comics, does the person in question is a newspaper comic strip artist, see no reason why we should not have an article on the person in question suggest WP:ILIKEIT? Michellecrisp (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, you can do better than that. I pretty much define I Like It and I Don't Like It and how I feel about them in User:Hiding/Points_to_note_regarding_deletion_debates#I Like it and I Don't Like It. It doesn't matter whether I like them. I've edited the article to meet all our policies and guidance. That's what matters. The simple fact of the matter is that this article should now be kept, and people should do a tad more research before they list something for speedy deletion. Hiding T 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

you basically invented a new criterion for WP:CREATIVE. Having participated in a few deletion discussions in my time, I've never seen this. Please keep to the subject in hand rather than debating whether deletion criteria are good enough for Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm staggered by this accusation. WP:CREATIVE states, I quote you above, "The person is regarded as an important figure" and "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". I think the quotations show how the person is regarded as an important figure, and the fact that the person's work formed the basis of the exhibition Art and Sols at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery upon which they base an education kit for schools should show that he has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I too have participated in a few deletion debates, I hadn't realised that was important. Does that help sway the debate? Perhaps you would care to explain your assertion that I created a new criterion for WP:CREATIVE, as well as your assertion that the subject of the article is seeking to self-promote. Yes, I would much rather keep to our policies. This article passes WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Since admins are supposed to close in keeping with policy:

“ Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions. ”

I have to ask, why do you think this article should be deleted, noting I have already also satisfied the guidance at WP:BIO, which, per the above quote, doesn't matter since it can't supersede policy? Hiding T 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to your queries. this is not a place for lecturing other users in Wikipedia. I will let the deletion discussion run and welcome others to vote. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. Had you changed your opinion, we could withdraw the debate. I am saddened that you do not believe the article now meets policies and guidance. If you can't point out what is still wrong with the article, how is one supposed to improve it? Hiding T 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 13:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It is easy enough to see why the article was tagged for speedy as simply being an artist isn't an assertion of notability. The subject appears to fail verifiability issues as well by not being covered in multiple reliable 3rd party sources in a non-trivial manner. Searches on his real name produces very little information and searching on his "nickname" doesn't help much at all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Subject does not fail verifiability, since all information is verifiable and third party sources have covered the subject. You seem to be conflating notability guidance with the verifiability policy. Our verifiability policy states that we should have an article on all subjects covered by third party sources. The sources exist. They are cited in the article. If I had access to an Australian newspaper library I am sure I could find a lot more, but we aren't biased towards google or online sources. The subject is stated by an Australian museum to have created the "first new Australian comic since the 1930's" and also representing "the start of a different era in Australian cartooning". We don't perform original research on Wikipedia, we source opinion. There is the sourced opinion. Ignoring that is bias, something we also don't do per WP:NPOV. WP:CREATIVE and WP:V all state we should cover this person. Hiding T 07:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion". No but, lack of an assertion of notability is. Simply saying that he is an artist isn't an assertion of notability. If you'd care to help clear up my confusion about notability and/or verifiability etc. Let's discuss it in a civilised manner elsewhere. Accusing me of ignoring the references in the article is ridiculous and doesn't help the article itself in anyway. The index confirms existence (not the same as notability), the ArtInsight confirms that his work is on show (again not the same as notability), the bio (again confirms existence not notability), Lambiek.net (same). Existence doesn't equal notability. Verifying that he exists is not the same as verifying that he is notable. BTW all the sources use his real name so if the article is ultimately kepted it should probably be renamed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me the speedy criteria which states "lack of an assertion of notability" is a reason to speedy delete? The only related one I can find is A7, which states it is a lower standard than notability. I am accusing you of nothing. You seem to accuse me of simply saying he is an artist, when I am patently not, the article states he has been the subject of a national exhibition and described as having initiated "a different era in Australian cartooning" satisfies notability. I'm interested in why you think that doesn't confer notability, given it satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Hiding T 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance on the exact wording of A7. I was confusing it with the edit summaries that I've most often seen associated with it. The article does imply that he may be "important or significant". My "accustation" comes directly from your nomination of the article where you say "The article asserts importance for the subject in stating the person produces a comic strip" and that is because lots of people produce comic strips (that doesn't automatically make them important). I still have to stick with my other comments though at least until some reliable 3rd party sources that cover the subject in a non-trival manner come to light. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article as it now stands seems to clearly satisfy notability criteria. Esn (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - he is a comic strip artist with his strip in syndication world-wide, and his work has been exhibted in art galleries -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to be a reasonable start on nailing down notability. Needs more work though but there must be some interviews out there (although the long run of his comic strip might mean some aren't available online). Also on Snake Tales, it might be worth merging that into Sols and then expanding it to a point where it is looking solid enough to split off. (Emperor (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

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.