Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kenneth Mahood

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. I am withdrawing as nominator and note the total consensus for keep. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kenneth Mahood


Original creator of this draft placed a PROD, which I procedurally declined since PROD is inapplicable in draft space. Normally, I would have simply tagged for CSD G7. However, there is another significant contributor to the draft, which invalidates CSD G7. Therefore, I will take this to MfD instead. Draft which has been declined numerous times for lack of sufficient and reliable sources and which the original contributor has requested deletion. I will leave an MfD notice for the other significant contributor. Safiel (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Withdrawing nomination. Safiel (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Safiel, for correcting my error.
 * I concur in this request for deletion.
 * After several submissions in which I firmly believed the sources cited in the draft article conformed to the guidelines listed in WP:NOTABLE, it seems to me that the reliable sources I cited in support of Mahood's notability were the main evidence for his notability to be located without recourse to the Francis/Taylor database. Similar sources identified by another editor were not materially different enough from the sources I cited to justify the work needed to enter them in hopes they would satisfy the reviewers who examined my draft.


 * I have requested the other editor who discovered similar sources to mine to enter those sources into the document. I am not interested in wasting more time on this project. I had hopes he'd have better luck, and don't care whether he or I are credited with the article.  All this time, I only sought to fill an odd vacuum in wikipedia in which other British cartoonists of similar renown had articles in wikipedia and Kenneth Mahood did not.


 * Under WP:VOLUNTEER, I'm choosing to disengage from this particular project, in the hope that another editor will revive it at a later date, and hopefully have more luck than I did in convincing reviewers that a man who'd had editorial cartoons published in Punch from 1949 to the early 1960s (becoming their assistant art editor by then), who'd become The London Times`s first editorial cartoonist, then was an editorial and sports cartoonist for the Daily Mail from 1969 to his retirement in 2009 at the age of 80, and who during that time was also an exhibited abstract paint and collage artist, and whose work also graced the New Yorker from the 1960s onward is a notable man. loupgarous (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: (1) The subject is notable and there is no time limit. Nor does it matter if the original editor no longer wants to work on the article: this is exactly why there is draft space.
 * (2) The note above from Vfricky ("I'm choosing to disengage from this particular project, in the hope that another editor will revive it at a later date") suggests that leaving the article in place is what is required.
 * (3) Note that I have no particular interest in this article; I came across it while reviewing AfC articles and spent time improving it. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - As long as work is being on the draft, it doesn't need deleting, and deleting doesn't serve a purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have noted the interest of the other substantial contributor in maintaining the draft. However, given that there have been numerous questions as to notability asserted by other reviewers, this MfD should stay open so we can get some third party opinions on this. I would not object to keeping this draft if there is a plausible chance that sufficient sourcing can be found to support the required notability. Safiel (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have notified AfC; this is not showing up on the AfC deletion alerts and I believe that AfC expertise would clarify the reviewing comments (aka "numerous questions as to notability asserted by other reviewers"). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A draft declined for "notability" and "reliable sources" indicates inadequacies with the draft's sources, not necessarily that the subject is not notable. The subject is likely notable, and the draft likely salvageable. There is no reason to delete so long as improvement is being attempted and rescue is a realistic possibility. Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: his breadth of work appears to put him above the WP:ARTIST threshold, but I would appreciate a few more citations. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:51, 20 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.