Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Knutson


 * 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. Brandon (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dana Knutson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Part of a large walled garden. JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC) DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N based on what's actually in the article not my confidence about what's out in cyberspace somewhere, somehow, some time. I see the article canvass squad have heard the call. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It does not fail WP:BLP because it is sourced by third-party material. The publication of Knutson's artwork moreover makes him notable. Sources can probably be improved but there is no need to delete this article. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the person's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per prior Keep votes. I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The prior keep votes are extremely weak. There is no evidence of notability within the article, nor is there anything in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party sources.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- fails WP:N because of the lack of substantial, independent coverage. The claim that his work being notable makes him notable cannot be sustained because it requires us to deny WP:NOTINHERITED, as well as WP:AUTHOR. Reyk  YO!  01:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NOTINHERITED makes clear that notablity can be "inherited" from notable work to creator; the major source of notability for creative artists/craftspersons is their creation of notable work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Is just another nomination in a string of IDONTLIKEIT deletion noms by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (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.