Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Hughes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Floyd Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Previously prodded as "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Floyd Hughes – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability" and deprodded without any real reason given other than to force an AFD, so here it is. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not sure I see why it's up for deletion. It needs sources, but a quick Google search reveals that he's got plenty of exposure and is published through Simon & Schuster. It's a candidate for improvement, not deletion, in my view. J L G 3 9 2 6 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a ref to his S&S book, '85, a novel. I know that doesn't fulfill notability in terms of independent coverage in reliable sources, but it's something. Plus, I think this is a grey-area case where the person clearly has some claim to recognition, even if not covered by sources discoverable via Google News... J L G 3 9 2 6 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:
his Three Days As the Crow Flies has its own article and(not) the first 5 pages of Google searches include a page in "comiclopedia", a write-up of '85 on grahicnovelreporter, a stub biography as Simon & Schuster author, Marvel comics database, Video interview on Loutshelter Blog, review on '85 at bookreporters, short review of '85 on prohiphop - not my scene, but appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Enki H. (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Weak Keep Enki, the novel has its own article, which does not even mention his graphic adaptation. But probably makes it as illustator of the graphic version & other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.