Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaise Larmee

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. No consensus, but WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows deletion in such cases. This is clearly a borderline case in terms of notability and sourcing, so we don't lose much by honoring the subject's wishes. Sandstein 21:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise Larmee

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

Article subject has requested deletion (OTRS agents, see VRTS ticket # 2018011110011208), arguing that he does not meet the notability criteria, with most of the available sources featuring only trivial mentions or being interviews. Having looked for sources myself, I agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Interviews do contribute to establishing notability on Wikipedia, so the reason given in the lead isn't entirely accurate. Articles like this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] are reliable and discuss Larmee in the kind of depth that we expect from a notable topic. Heidi MacDonald described Larmee as "a cartoonist of some repute", and The Comics Journal said that Larmee is one of "The new comics “personalities” [seeking] out attention in a way previous generations of cartoonists did not, which has led, in some cases, to the persona overshadowing the work." These are all indications of a notable person, and I haven't even looked for sources not in use yet. Now, it's true that Young Lions can cover a lot of this topic, but Larmee has done more than just that and reliable sources have covered his other work to various degrees (like this [8]). I apologise to Larmee for voting against his will in order to keep to the spirit of Wikipedia. ~Mable (chat) 21:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not contribute to notability, we lack enough reliable sources covering Larmee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as a recipient of the annual Xeric grant and coverage by reliable sources like this from Comics Beat, this and this from ComicsAlliance, this from The Comics Journal, and this from Hyperallergic. Definitely meets criteria 3 and 4c of WP:AUTHOR. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've attempted to improve this article in the past but I agree it ultimately fails the basic criteria (WP:BASIC). Sources provide little to no depth on the subject. The sources listed above include a broken link and an article with less than half a sentence on the subject (here and here). Tom-of-finland (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both those sources work fine for me - which one looks broken to you? Either way, broken links are no problem for notability. ~Mable (chat) 19:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is the link I was referring to. While dead links do not usually indicate a problem with the source, in this case the linked online article was taken offline 2 days after it was published, suggesting it was unfit for publication to begin with. It seems like a good example of a bad source. Tom-of-finland (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (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.