Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolcett


 * 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 delete. Difficulty in finding sources is often a symptom of a lack of notability. The consensus here indicates that the provided sources are not substantial enough to warrant keeping this article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dolcett

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present. Still, deletion is on the table, given a lack of reliable sources, and notability concerns. Xoloz 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. I'm sure that people later on in the discussion will claim that all the delete "votes" are WP:IDONTLIKEITs, but that has nothing to do with it -- I was unable to establish any kind of mainstream notability for this artist. Google hits are strictly fan sites, forums, and other language Wikipedias; I combed the first 5 pages and found nothing that would qualify as a reliable source.  Same for the 68 results returned by dogpile.com. Library databases are completely devoid of any hits (not surprising, given the subject matter), and this all strongly suggests to me that if there are any reliable sources, it'll be an uphill battle to find them. --Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dolcett is quoted by Allen Armac in his book along other writers of comics such as Jean-Claude Forest and Guido Crepax. Hektor 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The book you cite as a reference in the article does not constitute significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability. According to Amazon book search, Dolcett is mentioned exactly one time, in one sentence, as being part of the "dark age" of comics. --Darkwind (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hektor promised some sources, so I will wait to see what these are before voting. Mdwh 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I gave it a try on the intergoogle, and what I got was mostly webmasters using the name as a keyword to attract Google hits. The rest were fan sites and blogs. It would be pretty hard to get verification on this topic, although I'm sure he has fans within the genre. MarkBul 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Darkwind. Keb25 05:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources are difficult to find which is inherent to the topic, but when you go beyond the 120,000 google hits you see that some sources exist in print (I have provided a book source, plus the publication in EMMA in 1991), blogs (including non fan blogs), and articles about Second Life. I consider the first paragraph being adequately sourced, while unfortunately the next two sections sound like essay or original research. Hektor 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability seems to be satisfied now. Also there are sources - if people feel there is unreferenced material still in the article, it should be removed, tagged with, or taken up on the talk page. Mdwh 11:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: See my comment above about the book cited, which is the only reliable source currently cited in the references section.  Notability is not established with one sentence in one book. --Darkwind (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Darkwind. The sourcing and notability just aren't enough to build an article around. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's no question. Marcus Cyron 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are not exactly reliable in the usual sense, but they are none the less sufficient to establish the popularity and the notability of this artist--considering the specific genre, they're as much as could be expected. DGG (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Did a google search, can't find anything with this keyword except fetish fansites, porn sites using it as a keyword, and other wikis. Oesor 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Darkwind. No assertion of notability backed up by a reliable source. Does not merit encyclopedic treatment and should be deleted forthwith. Eusebeus 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacking any good references. --Dragonfiend 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Darkwind. No verifiability, no notability. Valrith 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Darkwind. --Jklamo 14:57, 18 September 2007 (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.