Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Meyerowitz

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Meyerowitz

I did try to research and edit this, but had to give up because (after removing all of the unencyclopaedic language) it turns out that he is just a commercial illustrator with no assertion of notability - Fails WP:BIO DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, "recent collaborations with the artist Maira Kalman have produced New Yorkistan, a hugely popular cover for the New Yorker magazine" sounds like an assertion of notability to me. Also, the New Yorker is often considered to be pretty much the pinnacle of American cartooning, as far as prestige goes. But I can't seem to pin down whether he's done anything else for them (or how significant the rest of his work is), so I'm not gonna vote here. -- Captain Disdain 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Maira Kalman doesn't have an article maybe this is an indication of how notable she is (?). Also, is every commercial artist (my term) notable if they design a single cover for a magazine ??? DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, boy, whether someone or something has a Wikipedia article is a terrible gauge of notability! (I know you threw in that "maybe" so I'm not pouncing on you here, but it's a point worth addressing.) I agree that if a topic has an article, that's a fairly good indication that it's notable, but the reverse should not be assumed to be true! (If nothing else, if that was the case, that would obviously mean that there would be absolutely no need to create new articles on anything except new topics!) It's a particularly bad gauge of notability in this instance, because female cartoonists (particularly female editorial cartoonists) are not the kind of people who're most likely to get articles written on them. There's been a lot of talk about the problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia, and while I think there's a lot of unreasonable alarmism about when it comes to that, the underlying concern there is entirely founded. -- Captain Disdain 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article as it is isn't very good, but reading the bio page on Meyerowitz's site, I think he is probably notable enough - longtime Lampoon contributor, a number of books illustrated, collaborations, yadda, yadda. Not maybe a long article, but something. If it survives, maybe I'll clean it up myself.--Brianyoumans 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Update - I have tried to improve the article a bit. --Brianyoumans 00:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He's got author/illustrator credit for seven different books in the Library of Congress, several with multiple copies and all with reputable publishers (such as Random House and St. Martin's Press). Seems reasonably notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above two votes. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:37, 19 July 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.