Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Payne (cartoonist)


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Henry Payne (cartoonist)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article fails WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article satisfy the necessary criteria. I've also searched for sources online and none of them seem to satisfy these criteria either. Please review the source assessment table below. Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Michigan.  Nythar  (💬-❄️) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Payne has an entry in the West Virginia Encyclopedia, both the 2006 print version and online version. Don't know much about this encyclopedia but the about section of the website shows a large editorial staff and gives me little to be concerned about. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment https://www.nationalreview.com/author/henry-payne/ shows his contact information. If someone wanted to ask him if he has ever been interviewed or reviewed anywhere, that would help you find out if any sources existed.   D r e a m Focus  04:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is looking better now than when nominated. After working on the article I believe at a minimum the guidelines for WP:BASIC are met. Additionally I believe the person meets the criteria for WP:ANYBIO#2. I may continue to add references to the article. I am trying to confirm the Michigan AP award that is mentioned in primary sources. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Every source added to that article fails the WP:GNG criteria. I can make another source assessment table but I'm busy today, so maybe tomorrow. I think that the only thing about him that is notable is the fact that he is a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Even so, we can still debate if this is actually something that proves he is inherently notable according to WP:ANYBIO's first criteria. Replying to User:Lightburst's !vote above, if you "think" that he meets the #2 of WP:ANYBIO, you'll need to prove it by providing reliable sources that say he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Like I said, none of the sources provided are acceptable according to GNG (I'll probably make the assessment table tomorrow), so the claim that he meets #2 can't be taken as a fact. Nythar  (💬-❄️) 01:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:COAL and I recommend that you do the same. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen many an AfD result in a consensus that is contrary to any of the available facts. One occurred quite recently, for example: Articles for deletion/Leo Liu, where the result was to keep, and an AfD a few weeks later: Articles for deletion/Leo Liu (2nd nomination), where the result was overwhelmingly to delete.


 * At AfDs, nominators begin by presenting their points while explaining why they think an article should be deleted, with relevant policy links. In many cases, like this one, after some article work, everyone agrees that the article is in good condition and should not be deleted. What if the nominator (me) notices that your (the !voters') claims that the article has been improved are actually wrong? Seriously, take a look at the example I linked to above. And like I said, I will probably assess the new sources in a table tomorrow. If at that point you have any meaningful argument to counter my evidenced points, please put it forward. If your argument makes sense and is grounded in policy, I might even agree with you. Nythar  (💬-❄️) 03:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Citations added since nomination are of little value for establishing whether WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The lack of independent coverage is a concern. However, I will trust the judgement of those who state that the Professional Journalist awards are sufficient to demonstrate notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. He won a Society of Professional Journalists award twice (I just added them to the article in the past few minutes), plus the Pulitzer nomination/finalist. Reporting on the former is minimal and lacking independence (his own publication is the only source reporting it), so I think that is not the clearest pass at WP:ANYBIO but it's enough for me to !vote keep, weakly. CT55555 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * keep based on the professional award from a society that seems important to the profession (won twice), the West Virginia Encyclopedia entry and overall the article is not in bad shape. While there is little coverage of the professional award these things still elevate the subject over his peers making him notable. --hroest 03:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I searched before but so many results appeared hard to find anything really standing out.  1,744 matches in newspaper.com for "Henry Payne" "cartoonist".  Many places mention his work or have a brief quote from him, but I couldn't find any detailed coverage anywhere.  But if the Society of Professional Journalists is a significant award, that's enough to prove he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article.    D r e a m Focus  04:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Since there seems to be consensus that the sources don't necessarily prove notability, but that the award Henry Payne won makes him notable, I won't prepare a source assessment table and I'm not against keeping the article. Nythar  (💬-❄️) 09:26, 8 March 2023 (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.