From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Daniel ( talk) 11:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Durwin Talon

Durwin Talon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable illustrator. Sources are not independent sigcov needed to establish notability. Jdcooper ( talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 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, Liz 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Daniel ( talk) 11:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Durwin Talon

Durwin Talon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable illustrator. Sources are not independent sigcov needed to establish notability. Jdcooper ( talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 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, Liz 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook