Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Zeleznik


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

John Zeleznik

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 04:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage in reliable sources. extransit (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is discussed in Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror:1991 : A Comprehensive Bibliography of Books and Short Fiction Published in the English Language and has artbooks published by three different publishers. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Delete – This is a weird one because numerous artists whose works are familiar to literally thousands of sci-fi and RPG fans aren't notable enough for Wikipedia because they get relatively little media attention and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This seems to be the case here as well. --Griseum (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete And an easy choice. There are no independent references. Only the subject's own website. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * Comment — Per: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." No offense intended to the editor reciting the party line, but we need to send that destructive dogma to the bottom of the sea. VERACITY + VERIFIABILITY + NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, screw notability. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want to list an article on Wikipedia, there are guidelines, including a requirement of notability. The article in question does not meet inclusion standards by the site's own guidelines, not your's or mine, so a suggestion of "screw" the standards is not an acceptable argument for inclusion. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Verifiability is a policy, and it matters but the subject's own web site is sufficient for that unless contested. . Notability is a guideline, that even more than most guidelines permits of exceptions.   DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A subject's own website is not an "independent, reliable" source and as such cannot stand alone as a means of establishing notability on Wikipedia. I wrote an article with TWO independent references and half a dozen local publications that had also written about the paper and it was deleted anyway. Even when you have what you would think are the proper references, someone will come along and nom it anyway, then it just comes down a straight concensus of keep/delete. Not the best way, but its the way the site operates. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * Keep - I agree with the points made by Edward321, Carrite, and DGG. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are quite a few fantasy illustrators who have made a name for themselves by winning the Chesley or the Hugo or the Spectrum Grand Master award, or being artist guest of honor at a major con, or some such, and I think we should have articles on them. Zeleznik does not seem to be at that level, however. And despite some searching I can't find much of anything in the way of reliable third-party sources about him. I agree that he has some level of name recognition (at least, I had heard of his name independently of Wikipedia) but unless we can document it with sources I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 5 July 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.