Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zina Saunders (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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 10:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Zina Saunders
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable writer and illustrator, with no major works or awards. Refs are mostly local papers in a borough of NYC, which are never reliable sources  DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I see numerous good sources (e.g. Mother Jones, The Nation) that credit her work and give at least passing mention that she is the author. There's also an in-depth review of her Mars Invades book on NPR. I think that is enough for WP:GNG.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Norman Saunders as a compromise as although my searches found results, none of them are better because they're included as it is or they're several links from motherjones; therefore, moving to her father's article saves it for any future work. SwisterTwister   talk  05:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep How can someone who has repeatedly been hired by the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Smithsonian Magazine, Mother Jones, etc. for illustration work be non-notable? I count 14 Illustrations in the Wall Street Journal in just 8 months of 2015 so far Has illustrated too many works to count. numerous comic book covers Dora the Explorer, Sponge Bob, Blue cartoons/books, been interviewed by Illustration Age, in addition to the sources already cited. She has won awards, 2008 commerical artisits] though the site is subscription. Steven Heller & Lita Talarico in their book Graphic: inside the sketchbooks of the world's great graphic designers list Saunders as one of those "great graphic designers". SusunW (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment She can only be notable based on the secondary sources, and they are weak. The fact she worked for so many great publications is of little import unless someone writes about her. New Media Theorist (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, which is why I provided additional references from her peers. They do not have to be cited, only must be shown to exist. Granted, it could be stronger, but sources do exist. SusunW (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment She's an illustrator, not a fine artist. The GNG for creative people is written for fine artists. If we consider her illustrations in significant publications as her "body of work," she is certainly significant because she has a broad and important body of work through her publications. I just found her illustrating covers for Utne Reader and The Progressive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep And now that I read over WP:GNG and other pages, some individuals can be considered notable without many sources at all, as long as notability is obvious, as seems the case here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The illustrations in the WSJ and other major publications are done under contract. She's an employee who is told what articles to illustrate, and it gets published in great publications. That is a lot different than a notable artist who independently comes up with an idea, creates the work, promotes it and succeeds in having it independently reviewed by secondary sources. So, I would argue that that contract work does not belong in the WP:ARTIST body of work category. However, she does have independent work, which has been reviewed by fairly weak sources, and that accounts for my weak Keep. Anyway, the article looks like it has enough support for keep! There are no delete votes other than the nominator's.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

, there's half of your signature after the relist. Apologies if I am responsible for messing up the formatting, and feel free to delete this comment once it's fixed.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) - fixed:)Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Formatting: I think we were all posting at the same time and the formatting got messed up. Megalibrarygirl.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question Can the editors who are saying keep for this article please show me the appropriate references? all I am seeing in the article are sources that say who shes worked for and some very local ones.  Where are the notable reviews of her work, exhibitions of her work? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * she is an illustrator, not a fine artist. (Think Norman Rockwell or Alberto Vargas not Michelangelo or Pablo Picasso.) Exhibitions of her work appear in published sources. Those abound in notable works. Look above. Illustration Age, a professional resource for illustrators did an hour and a half interview with her (okay the first 15 minutes is not with her). Not likely they would have spent the time were she not notable. In addition she was included in the book above noted and labeled as one of the great illustrators. Reviews of the book in which she is called one of the "great designers" have been reviewed by Inkblot and the Atlantic as one of the best analysis of designers in the field. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks u|SusunW for the explanation, Saunders certainly appears very close to the big N:). Sorry for being a pain, but looking at WP:CREATIVE -
 * 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Is she?
 * 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Has she?


 * 3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Has it?
 * 4.The person's work (or works) 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. Is it?
 * The Book cited above, Graphics looks impressive but does this mean that all the designers listed should have their own wikiarticle (point 3. above may apply)?
 * As for appearing in notable publications, sorry going way off mark, should all the illustrators (sorry, I'm thinking cartoonists/satirists and others) who have appeared in Punch, The Illustrated London News, The Bulletin, The New Yorker have their own articles (room begins to empty as Media wikiproject members quietly leave:)))? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have explained why she meets GNG and she doesn't have to meet any other criteria. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". And in answer to your last query, yes if they meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2015 (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.