Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mack White


 * 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 per consensus, per additional sourcing that verifies the notability of Mack, and additional cleanup that happened after the good faith nomination. Article still needs cleanup though, marking as such. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mack White

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to establish why this person is notable. Lacks verifible 3rd party citations. Fails WP:BIO Rtphokie (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as NN; I can't find any sources to demonstrate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any sources but Waynepix did. Keep; looks notable based on the new sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Mack White is on the List of Comics Journal interview subjects, a reliable standard for notability in the comics industry. He is also listed prominently in the Zero Zero article, another strong measure of his notoriety in the medium. Waynepix (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Being listed in a wikipedia article isn't a measure of notability; anyone could have put them there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The significance of White's contributions to Zero Zero and other ground-breaking anthologies is well known in the comics industry. His interview in the Comics Journal is also well known. These are verifiable facts, not simply a matter of someone putting his name in a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this is an issue that can best be addressed by someone with a knowledge of the subject of comics.Waynepix (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very possible, but it needs to be verified. See WP:RS and WP:V. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not have an opinion regarding the subject's notability at the moment. There is a lot of info currently in the article that is, at the moment, unveriefied and this worried me quite a bit. However, doing a GoogleNews search for "Mack White" comic gives 57 hits and the same GoogleBooks search gives 38 hits . This might be viewed as indication of notability as a comic book artist. However, I could not verify the claim in the article that he was interviews in the Rolling Stone. A search of the Rolling Stone website produces no hits. Notability as a blogger or a political commentator appears dubious; I could not find any independent reliable sources to that effect. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added three full citations to the article, one to the 1997 Comics Journal interview, a second to a profile of the artist in the Austin American-Statesman, and a third to the Baltimore City Paper. The Rolling Stone interview was a short interview by Peter Relic on page 92 of the August 19, 2004 issue, with White and Gary Groth, his co-editor of The Bush Junta, probably not a long enough piece to be considered a full interview. I would suggest deleting mention of the piece, and perhaps deleting mention of White's being a blogger and political commentator until a reliable source can be found for those statements.Waynepix (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A fourth citation to a more recent profile and interview (Austin Chronicle, 12/22/2006) has also been added.Waynepix (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unverified statements have been removed. Suggestions for further clean-up of the article are welcome.Waynepix (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep based on your new sources; my suggestion for cleanup would be using more footnote citations for the biographical section of the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
 * Following your suggestion, I added several footnotes to the biographical information. The last paragraph contained information that could not be verified, therefore it was removed. Other changes were made for clarification and a more concise article.Waynepix (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. References that look like independent secondary sources are listed.  I see that the subject is interested in his biography.  Welcome, Mark.  See WP:COI for constructive advice.  A picture of the subject and of the subjects work, copyrighted under the GFDL, would definately help improve the article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It somewhere close to the notability limit but there has been some good work done finding sources. (Emperor (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (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.