Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Calero


 * 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 '''okay, that's better. Notability properly asserted, article expanded - it's now a keep.''' DS 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Calero
Notability/importance in question. Subject's only assertion of notability is working for a comic book company. Appears to be a borderline A7 article, but the author strongly refutes this. NMChico24 04:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm sorry, but I have tried to, respectfully make clear, that Dennis Calero, aside of course from being one of my favorite artists, has worked on hundreds of comics, many of which are featured in wikipedia as significant, as well as having had his most recent title nominated for a Harvey award, which is arguably the second highest award in comics, second only to the eisner.

My understanding is that he is working on several projects that would be commonly considered "notable."

Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ughmonster (talk • contribs)
 * The projects themselves my be notable, but that doesn't mean everyone who works on them is. What has this person done that is truly notable?  What non-trival, widely-read and trusted publications has he personally been interviewed or been the subject of articles in? --NMChico24 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bit premature. A good start is that he's the penciller of a recently Harvey-Award-nominated series (and penciller is the principle artistic role for a comic), and there should be mre info to find. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns about this being premature. The fact is, the article has been deleted twice, and has been proposed for deletion a third time by more than one person. This seems like a good compromise, because it allows community consensus and stops the repeated deleting and reposting that's been occuring. --NMChico24 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the idea that the project may be notable and yet the person who actually draws it is not? Other than the writer, the penciller (or artist as he both pencilled and inked his own work) is the most significant person on the project.  By the way, my apologies for my misunderstanding of Wiki ediquette. In the meantime, here's a link to the 2006 Harvey Award nominees:  Thank you man in black. The only reference I have is a printed program from the Baltimore Convention in which the awards took place. Other than that, this link: http://www.harveyawards.org/

Thank you Ughmonster 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies if the above statement that I made seems a little strongly-worded. I am simply stating some questions that should be answered by the article.  If these questions are answered, then it's unlikely the article will be deleted.  Just wanted to clarify so as not to be biting anyone.  :-) --NMChico24 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dennis Calero was featured in an article in time out ny, a page of which is on dennis Calero's website. www.denniscalero.com  I believe this qualifies as a non trivial magazine, at least to some people anyway. Ughmonster 05:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. However, the article needs to be dramatically expanded to reflect the assertions of the author. --N Shar 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the notice can be removed? And can this article be locked from being deleted for the time being, or can someone tomorrow decide to start the process all over again? Thank you. Ughmonster 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The notice stays up for a week, so that people can bring up any new information. (It doesn't seem likely that new information will make it more likely to be deleted, but it could turn out that Calero is someone's pen name or a hoax or something. Not likely, but possible.) In the meantime, we're going to add the information needed to keep it from being deleted speedily (that is, without a discussion). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion will go on for up to 5 days. Once consensus is reached, the article will either be deleted, or the notice will be removed automatically by an administrator.  For more information, please see Articles for deletion.  Thanks! --NMChico24 05:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Where can I can to learn about adding things like pictures? Ughmonster 05:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest Help:Images and other uploaded files --NMChico24 05:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, He seems notable to me. Google, for instance, turns up all kinds of info on him. Stephen Day 05:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If the article cannot be appropriately rewriten after three tries, it is time to give it a rest.  You may be quite right that Dennis Calero will become notable any month now.  Wait a year or so, and then write an article that clearly states his notability (for all, or at least most, to see).  For now, give it a rest.  Bejnar 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Benjar, simply because the previous iterations of this article may have been prematurely deleted and the original authors didn't care to contest it, doesn't in and of itself, speak to THIS articles deletion. Dennis Calero has done more work and mroe significant work, award nomiated work, than many of the other comic artists listed currently in wiki. In fact, the fact that three seperate people (or at the very least two) have tried to put up articles concerning this artist should SPEAK to notability, not against it.  Ughmonster 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable artist working on notable books, and the Harvey Award is a pretty big deal within the industry. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete until he gets a few more credits under his belt &mdash; This is not an encyclopedia article but a book blurb. Also, whoever wrote it didn't have enough respect for Wikipedia to read the Manual of Style, Wikiproject Comics exemplars, etc., so it certainly feels as if he just considers Wiki a place for hype/adv. -- Tenebrae 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also ask Ughmonster, who created the page and is either a huge fan of the artist or the artist himself, to please stop interjecting whbat may be seen as self-serving or possibly biased comments, and let an unfettered dicussion take place. --Tenebrae 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments are unnecc. acerbic and frankly, presumptuous. No I did nto read the entire manual of style, but I have made an honest effort to read to every page and set of guidelines that I've been referred to, none of which suggested that commenting in a discussion page is ill-mannered.  There is no "hype" in my listing, except perhaps for a link to the artist's website, which I did not add.
 * I don't see how asking me to stop "interjecting" is going to add to the discussion. It's my first page, and if this is supposed to be a discussion, why wouldn't I be encoruaged to try and answer criticism and ask questions?
 * At the same time, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to hinder the process, but I frankly don;t understand, with every Wiki policy emphasizing being kind to first time users, why some obviously more experienced users insist on slamming me for not being as familiar with Wiki policies as they, and to the point of accusations of dsengeniousness, especially considering that in terms of "overt bias" and "advertising", just about every other current comic artist's listing on this site includes contact information and service descriptions. --Ughmonster 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's "slamming" anyone by asking that those who contribute to Wikipedia read up on some of the basic rules and editorial policies. It's also hard for unbiased, disinterested contributors, with no personal stake in an issue, to have a substantive discussion on its merits when an interested party won't let them do so without it turning into an issue of personal emotion. --Tenebrae 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The author of the article has given a pretty good defense of notability, if it all turns out to be true. Unfortunately, the article as it currently stands does not reflect all the information Ughmonster has cited.  The article needs major improvement, it needs to be written out with proper sources to verify everything said by Ughmonster.  Starblind notes that the guy is up for a pretty serious award within the industry and working on several major, notable projects is good enough for me as far as notability is concerned.  If the article is fixed by the end of the AfD cycle, it should be kept... if it only has a small amount of info, as it does now, then delete it.  --The Way 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems as though a lot of people are exercising an absurdly high level of notability re:deletion. He's a notable artist that's worked on notable books.  This is an encyclopedia, not a who's who.  --MonkBirdDuke 09:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability 4.18GB 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above vote for delete was blanked out by User:70.19.97.253. I restored it by reversion. MidgleyDJ 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4.18GB is clearly an identity made up on short notice, no credits etc, who wants to, for whatever reason, disrupt this process and thus I felt needed deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.97.253 (talk).
 * Your own account also has no edits save this one. Is this user (User:70.19.97.253) posting under different names in this deletion discussion? MidgleyDJ 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm moving anon because I saw something shifty going on, so I don't wish to, in turn, be flamed. I'm sorry you find that level of caution so shocking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.97.253 (talk).
 * It's noteworthy that User:70.19.97.253 & User:Ughmonster have been editing the same pages, in similar language - and are likely to be the same person. Removing delete comments in a deletion discussion that you have a clear interest is concerning. MidgleyDJ 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh fer... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.115.36 (talk).
 * For further discussion of the blanking please see User talk:70.19.97.253. MidgleyDJ 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Encyclopedia's have short entries. Not everyone needs to be Todd McFarlane to merit an entry. --Mild Mannered 18:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that not all articles need to be really long, but they need to have at least some content; this one has a grand total of four sentences and they leave out vital information that ALL biographical articles need: birth date, hometown, education, etc. Four sentences isn't anything, it needs to be written out in a few paragraphs and in the proper form for living biographies.  I agree that the guy seems notable enough, though so far there aren't really any sources cited in the article to back up these claims.  I think the article should stay but it needs to be expanded, properly sources and properly formatted.  --The Way 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're 100% right and I will, as soon as I get home from work. Some of us have jobs you  know!  ;)  One thing though, clearly I am an inexperienced user, and this is supposed to be a collaborative effort, so the fact that I may not format things correctly shouldn't be the deciding factor.  People should help me format it, once the information is there, of course.  --Ughmonster 20:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, people will. --Mild Mannered 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please seems notable and defintely not qualified for speedy erasure Yuckfoo 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: the artist has emailed me, very nice, that he would prefer not to provide me with copyrighted images to put on wikipedia. Can I grab shots from websites if they are meant to be promotional (like his Star Trek poster?)  --Ughmonster 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in the comic book world. The article needs work, though. --Marriedtofilm 04:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * keep -- The subject of the article is clearly notable to anyone reading comics now. And the article seems at least as long and as informative as other people of the same level of notability and relative..."newness"...  I should have expanded on this earlier and I am a new user but jumping to the conclusion that I'm "stuffing the ballot box" is silly.  Grow up.  --ConeyIslandBoy 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The above "Keep" is also by a newly registered (Oct. 24) user. This, together with the new-user erasure of a Delete above, as noted by MidgleyDJ, very much gives the appearance of an interested party rallying friends not previously contributing to Wikipedia is order to "stuff the ballot". An Admin should be made aware of this. -- Tenebrae 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet no interest in the fact that Midge and 4.18 post within 2 min of each other. --Ughmonster 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ughmonster, assuming you are talking about me when you say Midge (sic): I said on this talk page I am more than happy for an administrator to look into any sockpuppetry you are suggesting has occured on my part. If you'd like to report your assertion that I have been using sock puppets I believe you can do so here by requesting an administrator to investigate. If you look through my contributions and those of the user you are suggesting is also "me" ie: User:4.18GB you'll see we dont have the same edit history, interests or contributions. I've done nothing wrong: I've not deleted other peoples comments, I've not written comments under pseudonyms or sockpuppet/anon accounts. MidgleyDJ 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment To the people concerned about 'ballot-stuffing,' keep in mind that the AfD is NOT a vote and is NOT determined by which side has the most in support. Rather, whether or not to delete an article is determined by the arguments offered by each side.  When someone says 'keep' or 'delete' without any argument, the administrator is supposed to totally ignore them.  Theoretically, an AfD nomination could have 10 people voting for keeping something and only one or two voting for deletion and the article could still be deleted if those voting for deletion have the better argument.  --The Way 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Way, I will keep that in mind.  And Midge, I have, but regardless, it's clear what you're up to and merits no further response.   --Ughmonster 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ughmonster, what is it that you think I'm up to? I just dont understand your comment. MidgleyDJ 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This arguing (between Ughmonster and Midgley) needs to stop; please quit being so petty and quit accusing each other of things. Stick to the topic: whether this article should or should not be kept.  The admins are smart, if someone is playing games they'll notice; they're only going to look at the arguments so this doesn't matter.  Can't we keep it a bit more professional? --The Way 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will certainly be more mature here and cut it out. But he started it.  --Ughmonster 11:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "He started it"?? I find that statement, combined with Ughmonster's sockpuppet accusations (without requesting formal verification) a troublesome drop in the standards we all voluntarily try to keep. I applaud The Way's attempts at keeping the discussion at an elevated level. Ughmonster has more than made his position clear and I can only ask, as a disinterested party, that he please just let the Admins make their decision. -- Tenebrae 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for letting admins make their decisions and I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems obvious to me that Ughmonster was making a joke. Unless I'm a suckpuppet.  Or sockpuppet.  Whatever.  --ConeyIslandBoy 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a joke. --Ughmonster 16:28, 26 October 2006 (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.