Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bishop


 * 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged from this discussion. North America1000 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

David Bishop

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While this article has been in existence since 2005 and while it has been worked on by a number of people, the subject himself has not received any notable national awards for his work and in 12 years the article on him here has not acquired appropriate references to non-trivial discussion in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I went looking for some in order to try to fix this, and what I found were several of the subject's own publications and occasional trivial mentions and listings in directories— I did not find the kind of coverage necessary to verify this article's subject as notable, and inasmuch as the article's age and number of contributors are not usually considered evidence of bona fide notability (per WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), it looks like we should not retain it. KDS4444 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * weak delete - I believe the subject is notable, but there does seem to be a lack of supporting sources online. I found these three: found these three that mention him in a way that implies notability, but don't actually discuss that notability directly. This seems like a borderline case of WP:INHERITED - how many notable things can he be involved with and not achieve a degree of notability himself? I would be very happy if another editor was able to locate some better sources and change my mind. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some work adding sources, to the point where WP:V should hopefully be met for major points and I'm happy taking the needs sources tag off of the article. Possibly the combined sources mean the article now scrape by on WP:GNG, though I would argue (below) that it should probably be kept per WP:CREATOR. Artw (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work Artw. I've reversed position to keep. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Not seeing any awards or anything to have him meet WP:CREATIVE. The article is a list of works and WP:OR/unreferenced biography. No indicaiton any of his works received criticial attention. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Strongly suspected COI given that there are insufficient sources to suggest otherwise. Clearly fails SIGCOV. Might pass GNG if sufficient appropriate sources were found. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 17:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs expansion and additional references but I would argue that as an editor of 2000ad and the Judge Dredd Megazine for a good portion of the 90s and in the process of that bringing a good deal of new talent into the comics industry, as well as being the instigator for the creation of several well known comics characters, he meets the 1st and 3rd critera of WP:CREATIVE. Artw (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep satisfied the article and subject meet the including policies. Bishop is notable and has been interviewed broadly regarding his role as editor of 2000AD. Hiding T 08:23, 10 April 2017 (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.