Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissanne lake

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. Those in favor of keeping did not provide third party sources discussing this person, and one editor who originally supported keeping changed their view when they could not find any such sources. If someone thinks they can find sources and wants to work on this I'd be happy to userfy the deleted article, but right now this fails WP:N. (Both versions will obviously be deleted).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lissanne lake

Lissanne lake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Some fairly weak claims of notability for this illustrator. She certainly exists, but not convinced she warrants an article. Unreferenced for a year. Probably a weak delete as the article stands. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been noted below that this artist has two entires, however the other entry is not tagged. I have now tagged the other entry since clearly any decision regarding this article should apply to that almost identical one as well. Debate (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Lissanne Lake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Keep "Not convinced" is a poor reason to bring this article here. I am familiar with her work and know where to find sources. Here are some references to start with: [1]. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am bringing it here for discussion, thats what AFD is. If you and others can convince me she's notable, I may change my mind. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • AFD is supposed to be a last resort. The first place to discuss an article is on its talk page and this was not done. Also the article is a fairly new one and you have not tagged it for improvement first. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • New? Created on 16 April 2007. Tagged? Its been tagged for wikification since May 2007. Come off it. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
          • My mistake - I was looking at the month more than the year. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - is this the same illustrator listed here? If so, I suggest a merge into that article, which does makes claims of notability. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per WP:BIO. Borderline, as there's certainly a body of work in widely distributed sources (Tarot art, Magic: The Gathering cards, SF/Fantasy Book covers and the like), but I can't find sufficient commentary, even within Fantasy/SF circles, to reach the level of prominence required by WP:BIO under "creative professionals". At least one commercially published book of her art (other than the Tarot, which is by her, not about her) might have swung me the other way. nb. All the sources provided by Colonel Warden above are book covers, which are only examples of her work, not evidence of notability. The Lissanne_Lake article, which is clearly the same person, does not appear significantly stronger to me and my vote would be be for that to be nominated for afd as well. Debate (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:BIO. This site does it all for me: [2]. It explains that she has become significantly notable in her field of work, and her work has been the subject of exhibitions. PeterSymonds | talk 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This site lists some of the book covers she has illustrated. Other websites indicate she has illustrated over 80 covers total. I say to keep this article (apparently I forgot to "vote" above . . . oops) and add references. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment As I note above, I think this case is borderline, but evidence of output does not imply evidence of notability, nor under normal circumstances would fan sites or simple lists of output fulfil WP:N. The question is notability, not wehter the artist exists. Debate (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh . . . I just took my own suggestion of adding sources and spent thirty minutes looking for them. I can't seem to find any. I guess I'll change to delete faced with an apparent lack of reliable sources. I'll admit when I'm wrong. Drats! TN‑X-Man 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Debate. A working illustrator with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. freshacconcispeaktome 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Debater etc. Clearly a successful working illustrator, but does not meet WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Debate's excellent reasoning. I have no further points to add to his analysis. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exists but not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete seems basically unexceptional...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, repeated use as a cover artist on a magazine with a circulation of over a quarter million (Dragon) is prima facie notable. Third-party references may be hard to find, and this must be rectified to keep the article, but Lake is not unexceptional in her field. --Yamara ✉ 00:52, 12 May 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.