Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hunau


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Barry Hunau

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am concerned that this article fails to meet the notability criteria for people outlined at Notability (people). It is summarised that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article doesn't seem to demonstrate that this is the case nor do attempts to find more sources using Google turn up much.

I raised this concern on the talk page over a week ago now and whilst the discussion seemed to have quickly become distracted from the concerns I expressed, it doesn't seem any progress was made to address them. There is currently only one source cited that is independent of the subject of the article and that only makes passing reference to this individual. I therefore suggest that this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Adambro (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. One reference is trivial and the other is a first-person mini-autobiography. There must be independent reliable references to establish notability and to verify an article. Also the tone is inappropriate in parts so if it is kept that needs to be addressed. Drawn Some (talk)
 * Keep There are quite a few stubs in the category Comics creator stubs that have the same issues. Let's for example take the one that is just above Barry Hunau in the category Chon Day Talk:Chon Day and the one that is just below Barry Hunau in the category Merrill De Maris Talk:Merrill De Maris, and just one more random sample Mick Hall Talk:Mick Hall. As long as all these stubs stay and only Barry Hunau stub is deleted, I am afraid I cannot help, but feeling that there were double standards applied there.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That the other articles should be deleted is reason to bring them up for AfD, not to keep this one. Drawn Some (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are probably few hundreds, maybe few thousands biography stubs that should have been deleted for the same issue (if of course there is an issue), but were not. IMO the fact that this particular stub was nominated to be deleted makes it notable enough to be kept. Once again I repeat that, if only this stub, and I underline a stub not an article, will get deleted while all other will stay I will consider it to be double standards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt you are correct about there being thousands of other articles that should be deleted as non-notable and non-verifiable, dozens are listed here each day. Please try not to see it as double standards, though, it's more of a failure to enforce the guidelines, certainly the plurality of the editors here on this noticeboard are not acting in malice or to promote a double standard but to see that standards are adhered to when issues are brought here for attention. Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, Drawn Some. I am afraid you are not aware of the very long (4 months) history that lead to this deletion request to be submited. I am sure User:Adambro knows what I am talking about. That's why no matter what is said here, I wish I could, but I am afraid I cannot change my mind about the double standards. And it was my last commment here. Thank you, everybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no double standards here. You could pick any of the thousands of other articles with similar problems, nominate it for deletion and I'd happily support it having assessed it against the guidelines and agreeing that it fails to meet them. Just don't expect me to go through every other article before allowing me to bring up concerns with this one. Unless I was to oppose the deletion of an article with similar problems, I'd suggest you cannot really suggest I am exhibiting double standards. The other stuff exists argument doesn't hold up since otherwise we'd never enforce our policies and guidelines because there is pretty much always another article with similar issues such is the nature of a project of this size.
 * I am certainly aware of the long history to which Mbz1 refers but it is difficult to see how that in anyway discredits my suggestions that this article fails to meet the notability criteria. For anyone fortunate enough not to be familiar with the situation on Commons I shall briefly explain it. Mbz1 has been very vocal in his opposition to the project hosting images by Carlos Latuff and has on a number of occasions been involved with attempts to have them deleted. I can't recall exactly how I was foolish enough to become involved with this but I suspect I expressed my belief that the images do fall within the project scope because of their potential educational value to the number of projects which have content relating to Carlos Latuff. Since then I've felt a responsibility to do what I can to protect the project from what has become a very disruptive campaign against Latuff following the community's decision not to delete the images. Unfortunately Mbz1 seems to consider that anyone who opposes the deletion of the images is a fan of Latuff but that is a very mistaken view.
 * Recently Mbz1 seems to have managed to negotiate the release of a number of images by Barry Hunau under a free licence accepted on Commons. These images seem to be more favourable towards Israel and so could be said to provide a balance with the images by Latuff. Around the same time this article was created. I do wonder if to some extent this was an attempt to justify the images by Hunau being uploaded to Commons. However, whereas Latuff seems to meet the Wikipedia notability criteria, this doesn't seem to be the case with Hunau so this article should be deleted. Whether the Hunau images fall within the project scope is of course a discussion for the Commons community but I would encourage the admin who closes this deletion request to be concious of the risk that some users might choose to oppose this deletion but be motivated by a desire to keep these images on Commons rather than a desire for this article to meet the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * I will be very reluctant to comment further here with any extent because the evidence clearly shows that Mbz1 is looking to distract this discussion with suggestions of double standards rather than properly address the concerns raised. Just as he has done when I raised it on the article's talk page and just as he has done on Commons on numerous occasions. Adambro (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no coverage about this cartoonist to establish notability. The references provided in the article consist of a passing mention and a directory listing.  That's far from sufficient to show notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep His work is found in multiple newspapers, and he has won notable awards for it.  D r e a m Focus  01:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any information about any awards this cartoonist has won. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what notable awards you are referring to. Adambro (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be sentence number three and four on that page. "Best Editorial Cartoons of The Year" and "The Best Editorial Cartoons of Campaign 2008".   D r e a m Focus  20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noticed. I just wondered how either could be considered to be an award, never mind a notable award. Inclusion in a book of, according to the Amazon page for the 2008 version, over 400 cartoons published by a company whose Wikipedia article doesn't seem to suggest is particularly notable cannot be described as having "won notable awards" in my view. I cannot find anything about "The Best Editorial Cartoons of Campaign 2008" but I presume it is the same situation. It is my opinion that the information we have doesn't support your suggestion that this individual has won any notable awards. Adambro (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (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.