Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Jaaska

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 nancy ^(talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Jaaska

Bill Jaaska (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable comic book artist, speedy deleted twice for lack of an assertion of notability, bringing to AfD at the request of the author. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Gets a fair amount of ghits, but there isn't substantiatl coverage and/or reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep significant body of work [1] though lack of really good sources; still, many ghits including sources such as [2]. JJL (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a notable artist[3]. He was the cover artist for 19 issues of Sable and did the pencils for most of them. He did the cover and pencils for Uncanny X-Men #263. He did pencils for Wolverine #30, Uncanny X-Men #265, Turok #23, Swamp Thing #104 and #110, covers for 10 issues of The New Titans, pencils for Incredible Hulk #378 (with cover) and #380, etc. --Pixelface (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• This is trivial directory entry stuff, a list rather than an article. But without an article on Jaaska and his work, with commentary and analysis and some indication of significance or importance, this is WP:NOT material. Google hits, or their absence, prove absolutely nothing. Either transwiki to Comixpedia, if they'd take it, then delete, or just plain old delete. None of the links above or in the article have anything at all encyclopedic to say about Jaaska. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is a notable artist, based on his body of work. As noted by Mr. McLellan, the article is still very much a stub, and could use more in the way of commentary or analysis. But that makes it a stub that needs improvement, not a non-notable subject that should be deleted. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not based "on his body of work" but on coverage in third-party sources. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place, but I certainly don't see any such coverage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, the sources where such an artist would be discussed—such as the Comic Buyer's Guide—are not available online (and I do not have a collection), but this artist's work was used to create a DVD comic book with where camera movement over the images is timed to fit actors reading the dialog. (now noted in the article.) Also I though I had read a wikipedia guideline (or maybe a suggestion) that for published authors, and artists, a body of work that is not self-published was at some point its own basis for notability. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither it is, but while I'm happy that it's that way, it is a relevant guideline. The article is still a bibliography. While that would be a necessary part of an article, on its own it's not enough for an encyclopedia rather than a directory. Still no word from the critics, no awards, nothing on the influences and the influenced, nothing really to say why this person is significant or important. What we have would be much more at home here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving this to a Marvel database that many do not even know exists is not a good solution. This artist did most of his work for other companies, notably DC, and work for other publishers than the big two (Jon Sable, Terminator) if this page does not exist here than anyone looking for more information of the creators of those projects will not find it. Wikia's are great for extensive detail that would not be appropriate here (Memory Alpha for example), but they have limited utility for the average user who does not know they exist, and cannot be directed to them without at least some result/entry here. If you really do not believe that he warrants a separate page here, then he should be a section in a page on comic artists with a redirect. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Let's look at the facts. This article was nominated for deletion three hours after it was created. Do people need pointing at WP:BITE or even our editing policy? Let's practise what we preach here and allow the collaborative nature of Wikipedia to work its charms. I have a stack of Comics Journals sitting here, but it's going to take me longer than the time this afd has left to run to find the articles that exist and build a better article than we currently have. The sources likely exist. That's all we need to know. If they haven't been found in six months or so, we can revisit it. There's no hurry here. I'd also advise the nominator that we do not speedy articles for lack of assertion of notability, and that the correct speedy clause is An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Being a published artist is of no small significance, but I guess that's all subjective. Stubs used to be allowed to exist on Wikipedia, I don;t recall the memo that that had changed. Someone want to post it to me? Hiding T 23:17, 7 March 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.