Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleedman

Bleedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Webcomic artist, most of whose work is illustrated fan fiction. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Kotengu 小天狗 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as it does not meet the criteria as a notable person.WP:NOTEWikidudeman (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because I don't agree with Wikipedia's current deletion criteria. Harg 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Kotengu. I like Bleedman's work, but he does fail WP:BIO. ~e.o.t.d~ 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A talented and certainly popular artist, but his main works are fancomics and there just aren't any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Snafu Comics could perhaps be expanded instead with relevant material •CHILLDOUBT• 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is well-written and seems to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if sourced. Doujinshi is not the same thing as fan fiction. --Carnildo 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Prolific and well known artist. His popularity is no more a question of personal likings, but a sheer statistical fact DrTofu83 14:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Can you provide any evidence of that whatsoever? We need reliable third-party sources to construct an article. Jkelly 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Nardman1 21:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete neither the artist nor his creation qualify as notable. If the political controversy had been covered by multiple major news outlets, as more than just an Internet curiosity, then I would have to argue for a weak keep, but given the facts, a controversy in the social web does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. NetOracle 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep artist with a very widely known webcomic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Montco 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep, was the most viewed page on deviantART. Mathmo Talk 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete notability. SakotGrimshine 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Eight million hits on his deviantART account attest to notibility, plus most people forget that he is a published comic writer. And oddly enough, Bleedman himself commented on the fact that he does not want a Wikipedia article. (Justyn 09:05, 15 February 2007 (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.