Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikalas Catlow


 * 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. The consensus below is that the sources available are insufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nikalas Catlow

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. Sorry, but my concerns remain. It's essentially an unsourced BLP (for 3+ years) as all of the semi personal details have zero referencing, and I cannot find sources to verify the facts - which is obviously against the basic principle of WP:V. As I said in the PROD nomination, this individual lacks notability in accordance with WP:BIO (example search findings).  Jamie S93 ❤ 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete- I'll point out first that at least some of the personal information can be verified at Catlow's own website (look under the biography section). And he does seem to have illustrated a good number of books. However, I can only find stuff by him- not stuff about him in independent sources. Reyk  YO!  11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The only reason we are here is that there is the BLP Unsourced flap going on.  I added a reference and removed this from the BLP unsourced category and removed the PROD.  Also i note another editor has added a different reference.  It appears to me that the author is notable.  It is highly verifiable that the author has authored many books.  There are no apparent possibilities of damaging BLP slander or whatever in place.  Best to leave the article with a few "expansion" or "refimprove" type tags, and let it be developed.  Perhaps a good statement to the Talk page, giving guidance.  It would then be likely that the subject or fans of the subject would eventually find the tags and the guidance and develop the article.  I have had experience with one or two Wikipedia article subjects, who have little clue at first what is needed for proper referencing in a Wikipedia article.  But when asked, they can pull out plenty of newspaper coverage.  Here, no one has attempted a proper newspaper literature database search to find book reviews, etc.  And even if someone had, there would still likely be proper references that the subject or someone close to the subject could find.  Tag it for improvement, and KEEP. --doncram (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And how long are we supposed to wait until it's improved? Why do we keep poorly-sourced biographies lacking in notability around indefginitely? Improve it now if you want it kept. Tagging it for improvement is used too much as a get-out-of-jail-free card; we all know that article improvement tags do not mean the article will be improved any time soon. Substantiate your comment with more than a single reference and prove the notability exists before voting. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have found the following pages that contain biographical information about Catlow (in addition to the self-authored bio):, .  Neither of these pages contain anything more than the most cursory coverage of the man himself, and we are still left in a position where the only source containing any sort of significant coverage about the author is one he has written himself.  Not only is the reliability of this source questionable because it is self-published, but because it is self-published it is not sufficient to establish notability under the general notability guideline..  Furthermore, I would point out the 4 indicators of notability for creative professionals at WP:AUTHOR:
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * 3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * The article as it currently stands does not even make a claim to any of these, and I have not discovered any references that do for this author.
 * Completely setting aside the current debates about unreferenced BLPs (as I believe we should do until the matter is resolved), this article still has verifiability issues, and certainly fails both the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for authors. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing to indicate that subject meets WP:GNG.-- Pink Bull  02:01, 5 March 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.