Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sherman (comic book artist)


 * 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. John254 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

James Sherman (comic book artist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not able to verify information given to establish notability. Only two sources listed, one unlinked and the other a fansite. Google turns up only a handful of relevant hits. Realkyhick 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.   —Ichormosquito
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions.   —X96lee15 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely notable among comics artists. Rhinoracer 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable among comic book artists. Whether or not this is reliable enough for the MLB logo citation is another story.  I think it is.  Ichormosquito 09:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Definitely reliable. This may be enough to do the trick. Again, inability to verify the info was my main concern. (Could you add this ref to the article? Thanks!) Realkyhick 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fixed it. I wish I could have found another source, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  Ichormosquito 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep The "Legion Companion" at Google Books has an 11-page interview with him. Also a Michigan State University Libraries page lists (towards the middle of the page):
 * Sherman, James--Miscellanea.
 * Entry (p. 331) in The Who's Who of American Comic Books, by
 * Jerry Bails & Hames Ware (Detroit, Mich. : J. Bails,
 * 1973-1976).

I'm unlikely to find this book, living in New Zealand, to see what it says, but it seems like a source - anyone else got access to it? --Zeborah 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I'm obviously in favor of keeping it. Aapold 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) http://lambiek.net/artists/s/sherman_james.htm Rhinoracer 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Debate on Wikipedia must be civil, true; but it is also robust rather than effete. I confess that this AFD nom made me angry, as nobody with more than a cursory knowledge of comics would have made it. Your online verification was desultory, to say the leastr. And, no, deletion debates are NOT intended to "scare straight" editors into improving an article. They are intended to vote on deletion. Please do not misuse this quite serious step, however good your intentions be. Thank you. Rhinoracer 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While a figure like this may well often work behind the scenes, he does receive printed credit for the Legion of Super Heroes books he drew, and the baseball logo is very notable as well.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable comic-book and commercial graphic artist. As a completely irrelevant aside, I've always disliked the MLB logo because it looks like the ball is too close to be hit from the batter's stance, and thus the batter is about to take a blazing major-league fastball right to the chest. Ouch. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is the sort of lazy, ignorant AFD that wastes so much of Wikipedia's time, server space, and bandwidth.
 * Personal attacks on other editors are not welcome, and violate Wikipedia policy. There was nothing lazy or ignorant about this AfD at all. The article, in its original version, had only two sources and only one with a link. Since the AfD, others have added source citations, as is often the case. The purpose of an AfD is not always simply to delete an article, but often to rescue an article that might otherwise be deleted because it lacks proper sources and/or verification. Please remember to be civil in all of your future remarks. Realkyhick 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It was not a personal attack: it was a criticism.
 * There was no misuse of AfD in this nomination at all. If you will check the history of the article at the time it was nominated, it will be quite clear why this article was nominated. Remember to look at such article from the point of view of a reader who had never heard of the subject. At the time of nomination, this article was poorly sourced and unable to be verified. It has been improved somewhat since then. My intent was to discuss deletion, as it is with any AfD that I initiate (and I've done quite a few in my time), not to "scare straight" anyone. However, if an AfD has the side effect of turning a bad article into a keeper, so much the better. I'm not so hidebound as to think that an article submitted to AfD must be destined for deletion, no matter how much improvement is applied to the article after its nomination. You seem to have let your anger get the better of you. Just because James Sherman is well known to you doesn't mean he's well known to others, and it does not remove the burden of source citation from the author(s). This AfD was perfectly within reason, even if it does not result in deletion. Realkyhick 08:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I know nothing of his work in comics, but creating one of the most recognized logos in sports history should be enough to make one notable. The article certainly needs some work, but that's no reason to delete. Kinston eagle 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Kinston. Creating the MLB logo definitely implies notability, if not sainthood.  X96lee15 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - noted comics artists, especially his run on Legion of Super-Heroes. Konczewski 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - Lambiek is a good enough soiurce for me. Artw 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The MLB logo and The Legion of Super-Heroes both make him notable. Either one alone would have done just fine. :) Stephen Day 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - should be a no-brainer but worth voting anyway. The deletion seems a bit hasty and there are numerous steps that could have been used (or given time to work) the claims were worthy of further investigation (as they'd secure notability) and a quick Google would have produced something usable (and saved all the hassle of an AfD). A note to the comics project talk page (or notice board) would also have sorted this issue out. (Emperor 22:13, 24 August 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.