Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Smith


 * 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. While the "keep" !voters make a good case that he meets WP:CREATIVE, I can't ignore the lack or reliable sources. Furthermore, aside from referring to him in the past tense, there's no mention of whether or not he's still alive so this article may be a BLP. A reliable source showing his date of death would be useful. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hank Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No sources except IMDB, no real notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The subject clearly satisfies #3 of WP:CREATIVE. While IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical content, it is an accurate source for verifying what projects an animator like Hank Smith has been involved with. These credits are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association of America and are therefore highly accurate and reliable. The imdb list of credits for Hank Smith as an animator is both long and impressive.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated above. Imdb is a reliable enough a source to establish #3 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't support a whole article with one source. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called a "one source tag"; which would have been a better solution than dragging this through an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per 4meter4 Imbd does show what projects the person has been in and in this case shows he passes the third criteria of the WP:CREATIVE. Derild  49  21  ☼  22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are no reliable sources providing significant coverage about this individual. With respect to his work as documented by IMDB, I don't dispute that he did those things.  However a long list of work indicates that he was an employed, and likely competent animator, but does not speak to notability.  There is no indication of any awards.  There is no indication that he had a significant role int he creation of any of the works.  The credits for animators is quote long in any series.  For examplle, he is one of 32 (if I count correctly) animators employed in the production of "The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show", and 1 of seven animators in the animation department for "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown". -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you did not include in your count was the sheer volume of this man's work... representing a 26-year career with the bulk of it at a time when animated films were hand-drawn cell by cell by teams. Heck, even early Disney works were drawn by teams of animators. So what?  WP:CREATIVE recognizes that being part of a creative team is acceptable to Wikipedia, and WP:ENT recognizes that being prolific can also be notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Although this person worked on several notable animation projects, his jobs on those projects does not appear to have ranked high enough to make him notable for them. Additional sources would be necessary to establish his notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be remembered that his verifiable and quite prolific career spanned from pre-internet 1960 all the way through 1986... a time when computerized animation was in its infancy. His 26-year career represents many many thousands of hours hand-drawing animation cells... much gruntwork to entertain many millions of children over a many years period... and little fame for his work beyond the works themselves being eminently sourcable as notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per this Google Books search: . I am satisfied that his notability is confirmed. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Which of those search results is a source that treats this person in some detail. All I see are animation credits. That isn't in dispute. -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While meeting the WP:GNG would be excellent, we still need to consider that his lengthy career in animation can be well and easily verified in numerous reliable sources, thus confirming that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment... and due to the wide coverage of his works, it can also be determined that this person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are making assumptions based on him being listed as an animator. That verifies he worked on the project but does not provide any information to substantiate the assertions you've made.  He may very well be a great animator but I have yet to see one source actually cover him.  Just credit lists. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think Schmidt is making any assumptions. He's merely pointed out that Smith adequately meets the guidelines at #3 WP:MUSIC by virtue of his involvement in a lengthy number of notable animated films and television series. An animator who has animated for multiple important shows is notable. That's the policy.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - He is one of many animators in an animation team working on the material. There is no indication that he was the lead animator or director or playing any other sort of significant role in shaping the works so being solely prolific isn't a very good reason.  If we only go by prolific, people with a long string of bit parts in movies would qualify.  Writers who churn out a guge volume of work that nobody cares to critically review would qualify.  Eseentially any creative professional with a large body of work would qualify. What is missing here is some indicaitont hat this individual is more than just an animator who has gotten a string of jobs. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue to express a personal mandate that this individual has to meet the GNG in order to be notable, and that is simply not the case... not in guideline nor in policy. If you wish to use WP:WAX arguments, Wikipedia recognizes that one need not be MVP to be seen as part of a notable baseball team, and one need not be the lead singer to be seen as notable to a major band.  And so to address your own WP:WAX example, this article is not about an uknown writer who cranks out reams of non-notable, unreviewed pap...  so we might best stay on topic, shall we.  Per guideline, we have an individual who has made prolific, repeat PROLIFIC contributions to a field of entertainment.  Per guideline, we have an individual who, as yes... part of a team... was involved in co-creating, multiples of multiples of significant or well-known works and collective bodies of work, works that have themselves been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.  And as dismissive as it is to say he has just "gotten a string of jobs" as if it were a haphazzard handful, that "string" turns out to be multiples of multiples of notable animated films and multiples of multiples of notable animated television series over a 26-year-long career that ended way back in pre-internet 1986. A mere string of jobs? Hardly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - He's done enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 16 October 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.