Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Gertler (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nat Gertler
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: The article contains links to the author's webpages and his books to generate sales. Does not meet WP notability guidelines. COI suspected. Wikipedia's guidelines specifically state winners of notable awards. Unfortunately, nomination for an award and not winning does not make one notable. Making a living off of someone else's notability--Charles Schulz wannabe. ANIMOCITY (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, Eisner award winner, numerous reliable references meet notability requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow me to correct Tom here: I am not an Eisner Award winner. I am, however, a multiple Eisner Award nominee, and despite what SPA ANIMOCITY claims, Wikipedia's guidelines actually specifically include award nominations for establishing notability. Including a link to the subject's web page is not only not a violation, it's a standard practice, supported by infobox templates, Template:official, and so forth, and it's hardly surprising that an author's webpage includes some links to his work (generally put forth much more aggressively than mine, I'd say.) If anyone wants to understand what's going on here, please realize that I edit Wikipedia regularly, and that this at times makes me the target of revenge edits. In this case, we can see that the original poster's remarks were adjusted by an IP user whose only other edits have been to oppose an AFD that I supported. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, as I said, you won the award nomination. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done a history split to seperate this nomination from the one that was recently closed as a speedy keep. The nominator had blanked the nomination page and started over. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 13.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 14:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:GNG criteria clearly met; pointy/sour grapes nomination by now-blocked sock. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ohnoitsjamie about probably sourgrapes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Leader in his field. I think the current interpretation of the nominations clause of Notability is to limit it as proof of notability  to the short lists for the very most important prizes, but the notability of the subject here does not primarily rest on this. It's just an extra.   DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which sources demonstrate he is a "Leader in his field"? I've looked at all the sources cited and searched for more but I don't see anything to support this. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Leadership => Establishing a daylong 24-hour Comics Day, with clear references here, here, and here and it becomes a big event in the industry; in my view, that is leadership.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Eisner noms = notable, not seeing any evidence this person is some kind of exception. Also, prior AFD was a speedy keep--while no policy totally forbids renominating after a speedy keep, it's likely to be pretty pointless.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: The majority of his credentials come from his own site, which is clearly a self promotion site. It is just publicity mongering. His being nominated is nice, but not noteworthy. It is like saying, I was a candidate for winning miss California. Well you didn't win. Sorry. No cigar for you. Maybe he should read the complete idiots guide to making oneself notable for wikipedia  ali-sama (talk) — ali-sama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm not clear which of the sites used as references I'm being accused of owning - the Los Angeles Times, Wizard World Conventions, Sequential Tart, The Comics Reporter, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, WBOC TV, The Deseret News, Digital Spy, The Lincoln Star Journal, or NJ.com... because if I own most of those, I'm surely notable as a media mogul! The truth is that I own none of them; two sites I own were listed as External Links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm quite surprised by all the keeps so far and I can only conclude that people haven't looked closely at the references cited. It is true that his book was mentioned in several high quality sources, but they are all extremely brief reviews, which in my opinion aren't sufficient to pass the substantial coverage requirement. As an example, the Boston Globe only mentions that it exists and the coverage in the LA Times is very similar. I've searched google books and factiva but couldn't find anything which would be good enough to meet the substantial coverage requirement. The other references cited aren't his own site (not sure why people think that?!) but they are all very brief mentions. Notability shouldn't be automatic, so being nominated for an award isn't sufficient to be included - should we have an article on every person listed here? SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - just out of curiosity, I checked all of the 22 creators named in the first three categories on that page. Every one of them but Khang Le has a page here. That isn't an argument that they all should, mind you, but it does give a sense of what is common here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Added By the way, if you want some sources that go more in depth, here's Publisher's Weekly on me and my work as a publisher, you can find a longer review of The Peanuts Collection (still just six paragraphs, admittedly) in The Art Book, Volume 17 Issue 4, pages 100-101. Here's a Jewish Journal piece on me and one of my projects. The two-page piece you'll find in this issue of Oh Comely magazine was actually an interview, but it was edited to look like something I wrote about one of my projects; admittedly, Oh Comely isn't Newsweek. I'm not saying any of that makes me notable enough, but it does go beyond what you'll find on the sources here. And the same blocked editor who proposed this AFD deleted some external links to other interviews as part of the attack on the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with  that multiple Eisner nominations are a strong indicator of notability, and there's enough sourcing here to establish at least that he's a notable Peanuts expert. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Starblind - Eisner nominations are indeed notable, Also passes GNG. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Nominees are not notable, only winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominees are notable. Here is Wikipedia's general notability guideline:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

- Wikipedia rule, see WP:BASIC


 * There are reliable references in mainstream newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Boston Globe, Publishers Weekly, Newark Star-Ledger, San Francisco Examiner, Chicago Sun-Times, Christian Science Monitor; these sources are multiple, secondary, independent of the subject, reliable, and coverage is significant. In addition, there are reliable references in comics-related media. Clearly this test is met.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is Wikipedia's rule about notability for a person:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

- Wikipedia rule, see WP:ANYBIO (bold added by tomwsulcer)


 * He was nominated several times for the Eisner award – a prestigious award within the industry. This is well-established by sources. So the subject is clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. (Again.) Bad faith nomination by a now-blocked sockpuppet. (Again.) But ignoring the problems with the nominator, Tomwsulcer has stated above how this article meets the notability requirement. If you want want to do away with making nominees notable, then you'll need to change WP:ANYBIO. And this is not the place to do that. -- GentlemanGhost  (converse)  11:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with book reviews (LA Times, USA Today, etc). -- Green  C  23:18, 16 March 2014 (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.