Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan wilton

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.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan wilton

non-notable comic book artist Richardjames444 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete

• ?? I don't think this page should be deleted. It contains informative and relevant information on an important Australian comic book artist and their work (There are many similar pages on Wiki all in various stages of development). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.111.182 (talk • contribs).
• See Category:Australian_comics_artists —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.238.101.70 (talk • contribs).
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, unverifiable at the least. (And, well, you know...) --Kinu ^t/_c 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - Unless it can be renamed and pruned to meet requirements.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.131.114.174 (talk • contribs).
• Delete Claim to fame is a comic on phosphorescent.com.au, which has an Alexa rank for the whole site (not just this comic) of 962,087. Also on graphicaction.com.au, which has no ranking at all. Fan-1967 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• The aforementioned comic isn't that website. It's not a web comic, and shouldn't be judged as such. This person has been published and distributed widely enough (and increasingly so) to support inclusion alongside other artists in Category:Australian_comics_artists. If they're all valid then so is a stub for this artist. But the experts should decide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.228.141.217 (talk • contribs).

• If there is a published book, who published it, when? Where can it be bought? We need hard information. Fan-1967 05:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'll go prepare information I think more suitable than that original article and return here tomorrow or explore aspects of how to start a new stub. Either way it will contain that information. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.64.41 (talk • contribs).
• Delete There's a comic underground? Do they hide in fear of persecution from bully comics? --Xrblsnggt 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Probably, but I'm more surprised Alexa toolbar is used to guage relevance for inclusion in what I thought was a truly great encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.64.41 (talk • contribs).

• Comment: Unfortunately, we can't very well go with the all-too-common, totally unsupported, claims that a website (or blog or forum) is enormously popular. What we have is Alexa, and Google/Yahoo searches for how many other pages link to it. If you have a better way of gauging websites, we'd love to see it. Fan-1967 13:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alexa, Google or Yahoo shouldn't be considered a valid means to test notability of a subject mainly present in the print medium. Alexa is also often grossly out of date.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.125.196 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Let me ask you again: Do you have a better means for testing notability? Seriously, I'm open to suggestions. Fan-1967 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, Wiki is getting so visited that possibly modern notability should be determined purely from searches/visits in Wiki itself alone, instead of relying on other websites (and so few and dominant). The beauty of Wiki is in it's open nature instead of being an echo of wholly commercial endeavours, and it would be bad for that to change. Get the gurus to set it up so you can use Wiki's logs! No other suggestion at this time. This suggestion refers to notability of subjects/websites only, not of actual article content.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.231.170.143 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Wikipedia isn't that heavily used. Anybody can leave a post in a forum and get dozens of people to visit an article, and skew the numbers. Doesn't mean the subject is notable, or worthy of an article. Fan-1967 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have found one reference to him in the Newcastle Herald (his hometown paper) of 15 July 2005. The article reads "With Lawson as the writer and Wilton as the artist, Azerath was born and the comic book is now sold in comic stores throughout Australia and New Zealand. Published by Phosphorescent Comics, Azerath has found a dedicated following since the first issue was released in April 2004." It is marginally verifiable but I doubt he meets our notability guidelines yet and the article meets Geogre's law. Delete until he becomes more notable. Capitalistroadster 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because there is no assertion of notability that I can see, so it probably fails CSD A7. Kevin 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notability. --Roisterer 12:20, 2 August 2006 (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.