Durwin Talon: Sources are not independent sigcov needed to establish notability.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Comics and animation , Georgia (U.S. state) ,  and Indiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : He appears at a few Comic Cons, but that's about the extent of coverage in Gnews, he moderated a panel in Vancouver for example.  Nothing in RS we can use, what's in the article now isn't RS Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Per WP:Artist , an artist or other creative professional meets notability guidelines if "The person's work (or works) has ... (c) won significant critical attention."  Talon definitely qualifies under this guideline.  Already in the article are discussions and reviews of his work in Communication Arts ( link ), SilverbulletComicBooks ( link 1 and link 2 ) and Multiversity Comics ( link ).  In addition, his book Beautiful Scars was released by Archaia and distributed by Simon & Schuster with reviews in Whatcha Reading , Broken Frontier ( link ), League of Comic Geeks , University Affairs , Graphic Policy , and The Sonoma State Star .  Finally, his book Panel Discussions: Design in Sequential Art Storytelling is reviewed and cited in a large number of places including this review in PressBooks , the Feb. 2015 issue of Print Magazine , The International Journal of Comic Art (Volume 6, 2004), The Use of Sequential Art in Literacy Instruction by Emilio Soltero from 2003, and The Everything Guide to Writing Graphic Novels from 2008.  All of this shows Talon meets notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I've checked several of the examples listed above as "significant critical attention" and sources like "Whatcha Reading" appear to be unreliable blogs, and sources like "League of Comic Geeks" and "University Affairs" only devote like a paragraph to this.  This is not "significant critical attention."  Elspea756 ( talk ) 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Wikipedia:Notability (people) , "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."  I agree that individually the citations are not that in depth, but to me the citations combine to prove notability as per guidelines.  SouthernNights ( talk ) 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You've already said what you believe about these sources, and it is already very clear that we disagree.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All good.  That's how these discussions go.  In the end consensus is reached and it is what it is.  SouthernNights ( talk ) 12:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a broad claim to notability here, but I think the crux of the claim is on the significance of Panel Discussions : Design in Sequential Art Storytelling .  There's little doubt that that book itself is notable based on the reviews and coverage linked above.  What's unclear is whether the work is significant enough to meet WP:CREATIVE .   In addition to the reviews above It seems like this work is pretty important among books about comics.  Searching google books shows it in the bibliography of many books about comic, and it even has some citations on Google Scholar.  It seems like there is a reasonable argument for WP:CREATIVE based on that book, likely augmented by their cover work for various comics, and game/card illustrations.  A problem remains that the article is something of a CV, so I am currently stuck around very weak keep , which is barely different from just a comment.  — siro χ o 05:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (very weak): sources just barely drag the article across the notability line.  // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 2 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus