Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Martinière

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. –MuZemike 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Martinière

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BLP, WP:N and WP:NOT a personal resume hosting website. The subject severely lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the subject seems to have won a Hugo Award, which is pretty prestigious. Seems relatively notable & I found a few citations. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My thoughts are that the WP:BLP should have been the subject of at least two pieces of non-trivial coverage provided by a reliable third party source. Do you find any evidence of that? (Or at least one?) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's cool - I wasn't sure if that was worth notability or not (not been around for a while). Actually now i think about it probably not. I cited it in the article anyway in case it sways anyone :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Hugo nominations, plus a win, plus numerous other awards, is not considered "significant critical attention"? News to me. --GrifterMage (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugo Award winner and Emmy award nominee. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Hugo Award winner. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without any sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, this is nowhere near a "speedy keep". Its more like a slow delete. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winner and 4-time nominee of the Hugo award, the highest honor in speculative fiction and art. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with those above me, although the article could use more citations. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as he's won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist, and a pile of other awards listed here. He is absolutely notable. The nominator obviously didn't even bother to review the articles s/he nominated (see here). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can say absolutely about the subject of this article is that non-trivial coverage from independent reliable third party publications is explicitly lacking. One would think that if winning a Hugo award somehow makes someone inherently notable, they would have some sort of coverage to follow and validate that suggestion. I'm not seeing it, are you? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One would think you had read the guidelines and policies you were quoting as foundation for these noms. Being an award winner of one or more notable awards qualifies anyone for notability. And it's very likely that all of these award-winning artists have been covered in one or more magazine and newspaper articles. You can verify the winning of the awards using multiple sites (and many of them are already verified in the articles). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm familiar with what I'm quoting, and I feel I'm being fair and consistent here in my readings of WP:BLP and other relevant policies/guidelines. This person may have won an award, but it doesn't seem they've received any kind of substantial or non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point and I'll withdraw this nomination straightaway. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BLP is not an article inclusion policy; it only applies to sourcing of information within articles about living people, not whether an article should exist. That's what WP:N is about. This discussion is about whether the article should exist here or not, so let's stick to the relevant policies, okay? Winning multiple notable awards more than qualifies the individual as notable due to his work receiving "significant critical attention" and the artist being "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (especially the Hugo Award and the Chesley Award, which are the top awards in his field). The information can be sourced due to the high profile of the awards. I'll see what I can do to add more sources (though the Hugo already has multiple sources). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, any Hugo winner is ipso facto notable. Rate the article as Stub- or Start-class if you think it's lacking sources. —WWoods (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple significant awards and nominations, cited in the article, sufficient to meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.