Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Ontiveros

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ontiveros

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:ARTIST and nobody has done anything with it in three years now Banaticus (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable even if all claims true. EEng (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Illustrators of kids' books are often as important or even more so than the authors. The books this guy has illustrated and their authors have articles here. I assume therefore they are notable, although that too can be contested if you like. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - See WP:NOTINHERITED EEng (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - inherited does not mean it MUST be deleted, read the guideline. And, from the top of that guideline: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My delete is based on the usual reasons, in this case specifically because nothing in the article would make him notable even assuming it's all true, plus no ghits including no gbooks hits. I mentioned NOTINHERITED only to explain to the prior poster why his logic doesn't work; for that purpose, referring to the essay is quite enough. Meanwhile, you haven't given any argument at all for keep -- I least I gave a link to the essay! EEng (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's "keep" reasoning is supported by WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i wish he'd said that. However, which work M.O. contributed to is "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? I'm not saying it;s not so, I just don't know kids' literature very well. EEng (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Phil, could you hop over to D'Jais and see if you can find some notability sources? If you can't, nobody can.[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2011 (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.