Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Meugniot


 * 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. I find that the arguments for keep are stronger than the opposes. The major oppose arguments are that there are few sources (which would be a good one) and that this is a stub (a poor one). A stub is an article that isn't fully developed yet; even if it's a "perma-stub." The argument that there are no sources would be a good one, but Hullaballoo and Warden point out that there may be sources that are not neccessarily available online. We delete because sources do not exist, not because they do not exist online. Consensus leans keep despite split !votes. v/r - TP 18:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Will Meugniot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prodded with " Found only name-drops in association with shows he's worked on. No source I found in Google Books or News had even one iota of biographical information". Deprodded for "significant coverage of work, and better searching will turn up bio info". I searched again and again, and could not find ANY sources about him, just his works. Notability is not inherited from notable works. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. First, the nominate has simply fabricated an essential piece of the deletion rationale; it is absolutely false to say that "Notability is not inherited from notable works". WP:NOTINHERIT makes it explicit that the principle cited is "not always the case", and cites various of the creative arts as areas where it does not hold. WP:N and related pages note repeatedly, in various ways, that creators of notable work are generally notable "without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources"; indeed. the typical way for establishing notability for creative folks is to show that they created or participated in notable works (WP:ENT, WP:AUTHOR). Second, the nominator ignores the well-established consensus for articles on professionals in the comics and animation fields, demonstrable through hundreds and hundreds of articles in the relevant categories, that documentation of the subject's work is adequate to sustain an article. Many articles may be in more narrative a structure than this one, but simply converting a list of credits into a narrative chronology is a difference in form, not substance. (Indeed, the nominator has created a great many articles on musicians which merely recite their notable work (eg, Jay Joyce)). Third, the nom's report that he can only find "name-drops" regarding the subject somehow misses the fact that the subject is listed as receiving two Daytime Emmy nominations (not quite so bad a miss as the time that the nom's diligent searching somehow missed an Oscar nomination in assessing notability, but still showing how ineffective his searching is) and somehow overlooks the fact that the subject has directed multiple notable full-length animated releases, which have been independently reviewed (eg, Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight. And, although the nom claims to have checked out Google Books listings, it's easy enough to find listings there for print coverage in the comics trade press (eg, Comics Interview 2, April 1983 . A ridiculous nomination that should be dismissed without delay. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I love how after all this time, you still have the biggest vendetta against me. Nothing that you've cited is biographical, and at least the Jay Joyce article has some meat to it. This is just a one-sentence stub that says nothing on the guy except that he exists. Where's the notability? Nothing you've stated is a real assertation except maybe the awards. And not 100% of award winners are inherently notable. Not anyone who created a show is notable on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We get it. You reject consensus, guideline, and practice and post uncivil rants against people who disagree with you, especially when they point out you have "a history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes or seconds."(, #10). Now could you please return to civility, as difficult as you seem to find that here, and actually address the substantive issues? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only when you stop screaming "speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot" at every AFD I start. You are being no less incivil than I right now, not to mention outright lying by saying that I "reject consensus, guideline". Where have I rejected consensus here? Several other creators have been deleted despite making notable works — for instance, Andy Berman, who created Psych, had been deleted in the past for a lack of sourcing. And the current form has no sourcing of its own either, just IMDb and another wiki. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a flagrant personal attack, and merits sanction. I set out the substantive analysis above, and you've refused to respond to it. If anyone here can be characterized as "outright lying" it would be you, since you know perfectly well, amd everyone here can plainly see that I'm not "screaming 'speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot' at every AFD [you] start." You're an experienced, adult editor who shouldn't behave like a tantrum-tossing twelve-year-old when you are caught screwing up. If you keep refusing to respond to substance and instead keep heaving piles of personally directed invective, you shouldn't be surprised if an admin decides to force silence upon you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again: How is what I'm doing any less wrong than your constant wiki-stalking and "speedy keep" at every damn AFD I make? You make so much noise about how I should be blocked for my offenses, but we've beaten that horse into dust ages ago. Clearly if I were a problem, there would have been a consensus to block me years ago. And yet I'm still here. Hmm, maybe that means I'm not doing anything "wrong" enough to warrant a block? Ever think of that? Of course not. You're so insistent on spamming all my AFDs with "Speedy keep" because you disagree with how I interpret policies and guidelines, and you think that I suck at finding references. As if the ones you found were any better. And you know what? Screw it. We've gotten way too far off topic here, and I'd much rather see other people discuss whether or not this guy is notable, instead of you continuing to eviscerate me for the same problems ad nauseam. Please, for the love of God, drop the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop saying things that aren't true; you're deliberately disrupting the process here with accusations you know are false, and have made up for no apparent reason other than childish pique because you've been caught screwing up. You know perfectly well that I haven't been "wikistalking" you or opposing all your afds. It's becoming very hard to avoid the conclusion that you're being deliberately dishonest. Especially since you still won't respond in good faith on any of the substantive points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is one sentence, and unsourced.  The guy probably exists, but sources are needed to establish notability.  Howicus (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, look at that, someone else !voted "Delete". Why, I must be the most disruptive freaking person in all of AFD history. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't drag me into your personal dispute. I just voted based on policy.  Howicus (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously, creative professionals are determined notable by their works. The nominator's personal opinion doesn't not cancel out the subject specific guideline WP:ENTERTAINER which says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."  He is the co-creator and artist of one notable work, and has directed notable films and television shows.   D r e a m Focus  20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just because you're invovled with something notable doesn't automatically make you notable, otherwise we'd have an article for every single person listed in the credits of Jaws. HoldenPhoebeDB&#38;Allie (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone, just the directors, major actors, writers, etc. See DIRECTOR and ENTERTAINER.  D r e a m Focus  17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems fairly prolific and well-known. Appears in the reference work Cartoonists, Works, And Characters in the United States alongside Mike Mignola and Frank Miller, for example. Warden (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * which, unless I'm mistaken, gave nothing but his name. Do you really expect an entire article to hinge on a directory listing verifying literally nothing but that he's a person? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's a bibliography which tells us that the subject has been written about and provides references to more sources. This is enough to confirm notability.  If we don't have many confirmed facts to report yet then we just have a short article and that is not a problem requiring deletion. Warden (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you know what's in it, add it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1   02:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete per nom. For such an unusual name, I would have expected a torrent of news entries upon Gsearch. Instead I see two. There are a few other general hits, but none of these leap out to me that this person is a notable artist. Just because his name appears in a directory doesn't mean he deserves a WP entry.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 06:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you discount the search results that show he was twice nominated for Emmy Awards and has directed multiple films/TV shows receiving independent reviews, thereby squarely qualifying under WP:ENT? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The director of notable films is notable. What on earth could possibly make a director notable otherwise? It's not the routine facts of his bio or education, which are useful information, but what is important about him is what heis professional work consists of. (It's not quite this simple, because someone who had directed two barely notable films and nothing else, would rightly be considered far too borderline, and we would rightly delete it. But looking at the articles for what he has directed, there are 3 clearly notable films or series, and work asa producer on others.) Inherited means inherited downwards; the correct use of the rule is to say, although we have decided he is notable, anything he may direct might or might not be notable, but cannot be assumed to be--for that to be true, he'd have to be considered famous, which he is not.  I think the nom must know this, for its come up hundreds of times, and always means it this way.   DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if we don't know a scrap of biographical information? Isn't that counter to WP:BLP? I still see nothing but directory listings of works he was involved in. What I don't see is anything of substance. Just "Will Meugniot did this, this, and this." Where's the biographical info? Is that not a set in stone requirement of WP:BLP? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. I just looked though WP:BLP, especially BLP, and see nothing of the sort. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be sourced per WP:V; WP:BLP adds "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It does not say "include biographical information in the article or delete it"; the age of the article precludes WP:BLPPROD. If WP:NPEOPLE is met, that is sufficent for this article, so the discussion needs to be based on that, not WP:BLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The general requirement of in-depth coverage in WP:GNG, which is not met here, largely derives from the desire to have sufficient reliable sources to avoid inappropriate WP:UNDUE weight and thus honor WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Some of our special notability guidelines carefully carve out, largely correctly, alternative guidelines which work well in specific fields--things like the named chair provision of WP:ACADEMIC and as here, some   provisions of WP:ENT.  While I'm often dubious of claims of the significance of roles and/or movie works which themselves lack much in the way of coverage, the daytime Emmy nominations (and any independent reviews of his works, as noted by  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above) each independently would to my mind "hit the bar".   Are we relying on horrible sources to show that?  I don't think so, even if the sourcing here looks weak overall.  Are the nominations verifiable?  I presume so.  Is the resulting article horribly non-neutral?  I doubt it. So, why not?   --j⚛e deckertalk 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's a freaking permastub that says nothing about the guy, just his works? Why can't anyone get that through their head? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe it needs anything more? Some read Wikipedia articles to find out what someone accomplished in their life, not where they were born, went to school, or other irrelevant nonsense. And it can be expanded, just click the link in the article to his official website and click biography if you wanted to find out more information about the guy.  See how easy that is?  Does Wikipedia benefit in any possible way by deleting this article?   D r e a m Focus  02:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We benefit from not having a "biography" that's actually 100% list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I fully intended to !vote keep based on the awards section but on closer inspection I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced that the 'International Monitor Award' is a major award and the snipit used to verify his Daytime Emmys doesn't tell me anything. Meeting one or more criteria of WP:DIRECTOR or any other subject-specific guidelines does not guarantee that a subject is notable. J04n(talk page) 12:39, 13 February 2013 (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.