- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dave Tayler (book cover artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
References here consist of an unpublished thesis and a series of routine mentions in registers which only verify that the subject existed, not that he was the subject of discussion in any depth by reliable independent sources. Two of the references aren't even verifiable ("Pilgrim school magazine"? No publisher, no author, not even a date? How can this source be traced?). Only one reference, #6, shows evidence of interest by an independent source, and it is in a publication with a very limited audience (comic book collectors). Article would require at least two references that discuss him non-trivially and that come from widely-circulated, verifiable sources. Otherwise, this reads like an obituary ( WP:ROUTINE). His work does not appear to have won significant critical attention, has never been exhibited as part of a permanent museum collection, has never been the subject of a feature-length film or documentary, etc., so fails WP:ARTIST. KDS4444 Talk 04:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Notability is pretty difficult to establish for book cover artists because quite frankly, most books will usually have multiple covers throughout their publication history. Just looking at one book, Guilty Pleasures by Laurell K Hamilton, shows that it's had at least 6 different covers since it was first published in the 90s. I agree that the existing sources aren't enough because we can't really verify that they actually talked about Tayler specifically. Also problematic is that a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unusable for showing notability, like the public and university records. The only ones that might be usable are the ones by Pilgrim School magazine, Ibid, and Paperback, Pulp and Comic Collector. Even then I'm not sure that these are really usable sources without some sort of verification. Did they actually mention Tayler or did they mention a copy of a book that he happened to have illustrated? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe anyone interested in art or artist come to Wikipedia for info. From what I've seen, most great contemporary artist would fail RS so what's left except the really big, named dead artists and even some of those have laughingly small bios. C'est la vie! --
MurderByDeadcopy
"bang!"
20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually,
MurderByDeadcopy, pre-1950 art is very well covered and I think lots of people turn to Wikipedia for art coverage. As for contemporary art,
List of contemporary artists is quite a list, all sourced. It's easier to source living artists than dead artists (other than the big names), since it's easier to find online sources than old books.
freshacconci
talk to me
15:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- That list only proves my point. There is only one artist listed who was born in the 1980's. Half those artists are dead and most of those artist who are listed, are there because they got listed before 2010. Where are the new artist that you've stated are easier to source? Does Wikipedia even list any book artists? Where's Margo Wolowiec, Adam Winner, Brent Wadden, or Virginia Cartwright? I've tried writing about an artist here only because I recognized the name and got accused of multiple issues of garbage like some insidious version of Wikipedia-Kafkatrapping. Artists, (even though artists have the reputation of being poor and starving), get accused on Wikipedia of being in it only for the money (and laughed at since apparently all one needs to know about art is that blue and yellow make green), meanwhile, Wikipedia has zero issues with listing law firms, media marketers, hedge fund managers, stockbrokers, and entrepreneur because obviously those careers are the epitome of altruism. I'd love to see one modern day artist get their bio in 2015 on Wikipedia, but I'm personally not about to waste my time attempting such a futile endeavor since I'd have to spend more time defending the article than writing it! -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually,
MurderByDeadcopy, pre-1950 art is very well covered and I think lots of people turn to Wikipedia for art coverage. As for contemporary art,
List of contemporary artists is quite a list, all sourced. It's easier to source living artists than dead artists (other than the big names), since it's easier to find online sources than old books.
freshacconci
talk to me
15:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe anyone interested in art or artist come to Wikipedia for info. From what I've seen, most great contemporary artist would fail RS so what's left except the really big, named dead artists and even some of those have laughingly small bios. C'est la vie! --
MurderByDeadcopy
"bang!"
20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per my concerns above. I tried searching, but I really couldn't find anything that showed that he's notable enough for an article. It's possible that sources might exist that were never put on the Internet, but unless someone can show that these sources exist, are independent, reliable, and are in-depth enough to show notability, this will have to be a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the fact that WP:ARTIST states, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, it appears that this does not fail WP:ARTIST! The arts have many, many specialty magazines that quite frankly don't get on the internet so it creates a huge issue for those who are largely IT dependent. It is, however, amusing that Wikipedia list more video games from 1991 than they do contemporary artists! -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 16:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - If there are art mags that cite this person, CITE THEM. The has to be on the Internet claim is false. Will wait to vote until they are presented. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Very reluctant delete because he has fans. Book dealers list his covers, people have blogs, pinterest pages flicker albums about him. Search on: david + tayler + "book cover" . Lots of images, pages. What I can't find is a WP:RS. sigh. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Really like his work, but simply does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 4 December 2015 (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.
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dave Tayler (book cover artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
References here consist of an unpublished thesis and a series of routine mentions in registers which only verify that the subject existed, not that he was the subject of discussion in any depth by reliable independent sources. Two of the references aren't even verifiable ("Pilgrim school magazine"? No publisher, no author, not even a date? How can this source be traced?). Only one reference, #6, shows evidence of interest by an independent source, and it is in a publication with a very limited audience (comic book collectors). Article would require at least two references that discuss him non-trivially and that come from widely-circulated, verifiable sources. Otherwise, this reads like an obituary ( WP:ROUTINE). His work does not appear to have won significant critical attention, has never been exhibited as part of a permanent museum collection, has never been the subject of a feature-length film or documentary, etc., so fails WP:ARTIST. KDS4444 Talk 04:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Notability is pretty difficult to establish for book cover artists because quite frankly, most books will usually have multiple covers throughout their publication history. Just looking at one book, Guilty Pleasures by Laurell K Hamilton, shows that it's had at least 6 different covers since it was first published in the 90s. I agree that the existing sources aren't enough because we can't really verify that they actually talked about Tayler specifically. Also problematic is that a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unusable for showing notability, like the public and university records. The only ones that might be usable are the ones by Pilgrim School magazine, Ibid, and Paperback, Pulp and Comic Collector. Even then I'm not sure that these are really usable sources without some sort of verification. Did they actually mention Tayler or did they mention a copy of a book that he happened to have illustrated? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe anyone interested in art or artist come to Wikipedia for info. From what I've seen, most great contemporary artist would fail RS so what's left except the really big, named dead artists and even some of those have laughingly small bios. C'est la vie! --
MurderByDeadcopy
"bang!"
20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually,
MurderByDeadcopy, pre-1950 art is very well covered and I think lots of people turn to Wikipedia for art coverage. As for contemporary art,
List of contemporary artists is quite a list, all sourced. It's easier to source living artists than dead artists (other than the big names), since it's easier to find online sources than old books.
freshacconci
talk to me
15:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- That list only proves my point. There is only one artist listed who was born in the 1980's. Half those artists are dead and most of those artist who are listed, are there because they got listed before 2010. Where are the new artist that you've stated are easier to source? Does Wikipedia even list any book artists? Where's Margo Wolowiec, Adam Winner, Brent Wadden, or Virginia Cartwright? I've tried writing about an artist here only because I recognized the name and got accused of multiple issues of garbage like some insidious version of Wikipedia-Kafkatrapping. Artists, (even though artists have the reputation of being poor and starving), get accused on Wikipedia of being in it only for the money (and laughed at since apparently all one needs to know about art is that blue and yellow make green), meanwhile, Wikipedia has zero issues with listing law firms, media marketers, hedge fund managers, stockbrokers, and entrepreneur because obviously those careers are the epitome of altruism. I'd love to see one modern day artist get their bio in 2015 on Wikipedia, but I'm personally not about to waste my time attempting such a futile endeavor since I'd have to spend more time defending the article than writing it! -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually,
MurderByDeadcopy, pre-1950 art is very well covered and I think lots of people turn to Wikipedia for art coverage. As for contemporary art,
List of contemporary artists is quite a list, all sourced. It's easier to source living artists than dead artists (other than the big names), since it's easier to find online sources than old books.
freshacconci
talk to me
15:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe anyone interested in art or artist come to Wikipedia for info. From what I've seen, most great contemporary artist would fail RS so what's left except the really big, named dead artists and even some of those have laughingly small bios. C'est la vie! --
MurderByDeadcopy
"bang!"
20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per my concerns above. I tried searching, but I really couldn't find anything that showed that he's notable enough for an article. It's possible that sources might exist that were never put on the Internet, but unless someone can show that these sources exist, are independent, reliable, and are in-depth enough to show notability, this will have to be a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the fact that WP:ARTIST states, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, it appears that this does not fail WP:ARTIST! The arts have many, many specialty magazines that quite frankly don't get on the internet so it creates a huge issue for those who are largely IT dependent. It is, however, amusing that Wikipedia list more video games from 1991 than they do contemporary artists! -- MurderByDeadcopy "bang!" 16:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - If there are art mags that cite this person, CITE THEM. The has to be on the Internet claim is false. Will wait to vote until they are presented. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Very reluctant delete because he has fans. Book dealers list his covers, people have blogs, pinterest pages flicker albums about him. Search on: david + tayler + "book cover" . Lots of images, pages. What I can't find is a WP:RS. sigh. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Really like his work, but simply does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 4 December 2015 (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.