Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taral Wayne

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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taral Wayne

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

Claims notability through multiple redlink awards and Hugo nominations. I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations, nor can I find any reliable secondary sources that discuss him or his work in any detail. Article was tagged for notability over a year ago, and has only 9 edits in the past two years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Nominator's failure to check the standard reference on the Hugo Awards [1] is completely inexplicable, as is his failure to refer to the award's official site [2]. Both of the sources are clearly identified and linked in the Wikipedia article on the relevant award, and indisputably verify the supposedly questionable claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still see absolutely no reliable sources beyond that. It's possible to be nominated for a major award and still fail WP:N, and the very low number of Google hits seems to point to an overall lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the key is notability in his field, which he seems to have obtained. here's the citation for one of those awards: http://www.scifiinc.org/rotsler/2008-wayne/; the others are verifiable (I checked). he also seems to have illustrated a number of notable works. VASterling (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete though the Hugo is a notable award, this person appears to have been nominated only for fan art. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia where it says making fan art means you are non-notable, regardless of what you win. Silver seren^C 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per Starblind. --89.211.97.159 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has had significant coverage in Science Fiction Chronicle and in The Globe and Mail. In the Globe, there's a long article from 1982 that's entirely about him and his work. I've added a few citations, and will add a few more when I have a chance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. A minor figure within the world of fan art, the sources found are minimal and do not establish notability. One very old G&M article isn't enough. freshacconci talktalk 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily so. The Hugo, eight times, is more than enough for notability. He fits under #1 of WP:ARTIST, as he is indeed important within the scifi fandom, his "peers". Silver seren^C 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One Hugo nomination is sufficient to establish notability; this artist is notable many times over. Sources are sufficient; the above comments seem to be dismissive of fan art as a genre, but that's simply not our place: if a major award covers it, then the award's nominees are notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple authors, cited, and seems notable enough. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:10, 27 September 2010 (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.