User talk:Omgitsraven

Ken Macklin
For the record, the only thing I ever did to the article was to tag it for a maintenance issue — I was doing so with an automated software tool that doesn't enable me to directly evaluate an article's content, so it didn't constitute an endorsement of the article at all.

Looking at it now, what I see is that nearly all of the references are to the credits within comics titles that he's credited with, which are primary sources — they're acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts in the article, but they cannot in and of themselves demonstrate that he has the notability necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article.

To make the article eligible for recreation, what you would have to do is show that he's been the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. A person is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists — to get an article he must have garnered attention, in which somebody not directly affiliated with him has written or broadcast content about him, in media. But as far as I can tell, you added only one source (#10) which passes that test, and it's a short blurb which doesn't constitute substantive coverage — so that's not enough by itself. So, basically, what you would need is to provide much better sourcing.

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wherever possible, a "media coverage" reference should actually replace a primary source for any facts that can be supported by that piece of media coverage. That doesn't mean you have to replace all of the primary sources, I assure you — once you've added enough media coverage to get him past WP:GNG, you can use primary sources to reference additional facts — but it's always best to use the media coverage for as many of the direct footnotes as possible.
 * The number of articles that already have him linked as a presumptive redlink certainly suggests that he's probably notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, but it isn't a hard notability claim in and of itself — the quality of sourcing that you can provide, not the number of links that exist in other articles, is what determines whether he gets a standalone article or a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ken Macklin


A tag has been placed on Ken Macklin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. J bh Talk  12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not deleted the article, as it seems to be better than the previously deleted version. However, unless more secondary sources exist, it is still not clear that Ken Macklin passes our notability guidelines and so may still end up being deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 12:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ken Macklin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ken Macklin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ken Macklin& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J bh Talk  13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)