Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Vo(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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Vo(artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Self-promotion. Graduated High School two years ago, but claims an "honor diploma from Maryland Institute College of Art" when he was 11. All the online galleries given in the references are to where artists create their own page to sell or display their art. Claims to have written "many articles on marxism and prison life" with a reference given to a paper written in 1970 with a citation to a 1968 paper written by a person with the same name as his. Google scholar has other papers written by "Tyler Vo Jr." in the 1960s and 1970s. Has a website on how to draw cartoons at tvdrawing.com. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  —Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is one source which is a news article that is reliable enough to prove that the individual is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)  I most assuredly did not add this comment -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.133.28 (talk)


 * Keep - We can't conclude that the individual is not notable. First of all, some of the galleries are reliable but not all of them. Secondly, there is a news article that is more than enough to support the reasoning that Tyler Vo is notable. Thirdly, he's listed in the Comic Book Database which isn't easy to get into. This supports the theory that he's a comic book artist and also supports the hypothesis that he is notable. Moreover, he owns a website that is quite well known. The website includes drawing lessons that literally state that the individual is an artist, "Artist - Tyler Vo". That is a definition. If the artist is an artist, is it not logical that he is not an artist? There's no way around that logic if he is defined that way! If the individual is an artist, we can indisputably say that the individual is notable. Am I not right? You can form the theory that the website is is not that well known and since the website is not well known that the definition is faulty, but how do you know? Unless you have conclusive evidence, you can't say that the website isn't well known. If you don't know how popular his website is, then you can only rely on your perception and not empiricism to prove that definition is correct. Given the fact that Youtube is a really popular website, if the owner of Youtube posted, "Tyler Vo is an artist" on the front page, would you conclude that Tyler Vo is an artist? Yes. If the owner of GJIWEGN.com posted, "Tyler Vo is an artist" on the front page, would you conclud ethat Tyler Vo is an artist? Wait a minute. How do you come up with a conclusion if you don't know how popular the website is? Unless you can measure the popularity, which isn't that easy. You don't know if the definition is right? Am I correct? All in all, because not all the galleries are unreliable, there is one good source, the artist is in a hard to get into database, and because it's impossible to get by the definition, "Tyler Vo - artist", we can't conclude that the individual is not notable. Geez, I'm sure more introspective today than ever. Not enough research to prove that the sources are not reliable. What makes you say that the sources are not reliable is your perception not logic. Logic involves mathematics. 1+1 is 2. You can't say source 1 is unreliable because of what you think. It has to be unreliable because it's unreliable! So yeah, I say keep.  -- Shasojay (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've struck through a signature that implied a I added a keep comment. And yes, we can conclude somebody not notable.  We do it all the time.  Instead of a long statement which essentially says that he is notable because he is an artist and we know he is an artists because his web site says he is an artist, perhaps you can demonstrate notability with significant coverage in reliable sources such as magazines and newspapers.  I looked and could find none. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. As mentioned by the nom, there are things here that just don't make sense and get my hoax senses tingling. I can understand vanity pages, but deliberately trying to fake something... The article has many issues, including a lack of notability, a lack of verifiability, and a lack of reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and trout for the random academic claims. No news hits, search and references provide self-written biographical snippets at best, and books and scholar results are all about Frankenstein - frankieMR (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (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.