Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Revoy

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 consensus is that this individual fails to meet the criteria for inclusion, with a lack of reliable, independent sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Revoy

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

Fails WP:BASIC, all sources are WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews. A prod on these grounds was unprodded by the creator arguing that Revoy meets #3 of WP:CREATIVE, but Revoy's webcomic Pepper&Carrot does not appear to have had "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". McGeddon (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Agryson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete single purpose editor creating article demonstrates clear conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has declared their COI: "Full Disclosure, I created the page but am also the English translator for the Pepper & Carrot project." This in itself isn't a reason to delete the article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit this is my first edit in a long while, I have tried to be transparent in any conflicts of interest though Agryson (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the depth of coverage fails WP:GNG. also WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The work I cite as most notable is actually his work on Sintel as Concept Artist / Artistic Director, which is a high-budget, widely acclaimed work, which has had 'multiple independent periodical articles or reviews' Agryson (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the cited guidelines and agree that more citations or references are probably needed (I can build out these references over the coming days), if I understand the guidelines correctly, I would need to provide more independent citations vis a vis David's work on promotion of Open source in the arts ("significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded") and his work on widely spread works ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). Would these elements be sufficient? Agryson (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a summary while waiting for feedback:

Failing WP:AUTOBIO : This is not autobiographical, I am a translator on one of the subject's projects but have no direct creative input, was not asked (directly or indirectly) to create this page and have specifically avoided referencing myself or other translators as I understand that we are far from notable. The 3 problems of Autobiographical articles supplied in the guidelines are bias, verifiability and original research. None of these 3 problems apply (bias may be pertinent if my tone is not neutral, but I am open to any and all suggestions on that point)
Not meeting Notability guidelines WP:GNG : I have already provided two or three citations that I believe to be significant, reliable and independent of the subject (krita.org, creativecommons.org, blender.org), of course I will endeavour to provide more but argue that there is enough to at least avoid deletion and instead at most have a notability tag so that other editors may help flesh out the existing citations (I purposefully created this page as a stub, being fully cognisant that a full article would require more work - See my note above at 16:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC) ). Also, to clarify my claim of notability under #3 of WP:CREATIVE], as mentioned at 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC), his most notable work was on Sintel, I will update article to illustrate this
"Single Purpose Editor" : I find that this on its own is a little of a catch 22, I admit I have only corrected a typo here and there outside of this topic but everyone must start somewhere when it comes to serious contribution so every editor will have been a 'single purpose editor' at some point... As long as I demonstrably make a best effort, in good faith to write articles and improve Wikipedia, I don't think one can hold it against me that I'm a newbie... ? While of course I understand that this is a 'red flag' for quality, I argue that it is not enough to disqualify an editor or their edits from publication.

Agryson (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

long winded arguments for keep by single purpose editors are a tell tale sign of lack of notability in my many years on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my long windedness I suppose ? I'll try to avoid it for the rest of the discussion, I was trying to deal with the raised points in order. Agryson (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing else better, there's simply nothing else to suggest the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 10 June 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.