Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taral Wayne

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. Silverseren^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". Silverseren^C 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]