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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Williams[edit]

David G. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. 1st AfD resulted in no consensus - I hope this time we can reach a consensus, either way. This has been tagged for notability for 8 years and it would be great to finally resolve the issue one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ARTIST. almost all the sources are comics industry related. He needs mainstream third party coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient independent references to establish WP:GNG. LibStar as a comic book artist most sources are always going to be comic industry related. In accordance with WP:GNG sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. They are not limited or restricted to the mainstream press. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The issue isn't that the sources are comic industry related, but that they're almost entirely primary sources used to prove existence instead of notability. There's no indication this artist has had a notable impact in his field. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to disagree with your view that the sources are 'primary sources'. The sources provided are all 'independent or third-party sources' and in-fact secondary sources (i.e. they rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them). The artist is notable in his field, in that he is the co-author of one of the first Australian serialized digital comic. As previously indicated the article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly satisfies" is only your opinion. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Libstar, once again you are amazingly astute - it is my opinion.Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - after a second look, they weren't as primary as I thought. However, they're still only being used as proof of existence, not evidence of notability. For instance, take the line "He is one half of the creative team behind the pioneering and acclaimed, The Legend of Spacelord Mo Fo,[9]" The source confirms he was a creator, but one review, no matter how glowing, hardly supports the "pioneering and acclaimed" hyperbole. And when the article says he worked on "world-renowned" titles, it's borrowing notability from Wolverine and Batman, not demonstrating how notable David G Williams is. According to the Selected Bibliography, he did one issue for each character. Hardly a defining or innovative run. If you remove all the fluff, the article boils down to: "A comic artist who was part of a studio for 3 years. He signed books at a convention once." I still say Delete. Not every comic artist needs his own page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2016 (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.