Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliana Neufeld

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. Consensus is that the sources out there fall short of WP:GNG. Kurykh (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Neufeld

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

WP:BLP of a book illustrator, whose only apparent claim of notability per WP:CREATIVE is that she and her work exist -- and the only reference present is a Q&A interview on a blog, which is not the substantive coverage in reliable sources that it takes to clear WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability improve, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already deleted as copyvio from that very source: This suggests the nom is correct in their assesment of the narrow breadth of sources there are on this subject. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge to God Loves Hair, which if it can be shown as notable, seems to have quite a bit of coverage also including Neufeld. None of it, however, seems to focuses predominantly on Neufeld. [1] [2] [3] and short mentions of her other works: [4] [5] [6] [7] Also, God Loves Hair is a Lambda Literary Award finalist and winner of the Applied Arts Award for Illustration. Yvarta (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable illustrator with no third-party sources, mainly Amazon links. Plus, how can you merge something with an article that doesn't even exist?? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled upon this article when improving an article I had been editing. In some places, it says she is an award winning illustrator, although the name of the award isn't there. For eg:- https://books.google.ae/books?id=LhE-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&lpg=PT6&dq=juliana+neufeld+award+winning+illustrator&source=bl&ots=WTlNThp8Ym&sig=17qFVhNtxMhfV8g4ZIVL56RzWIc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvgp6K56PTAhWBOhQKHesICDEQ6AEIUzAR#v=onepage&q=juliana%20neufeld%20award%20winning%20illustrator&f=false Here, don't know if it can be trusted. I think Move to God Loves Hair and placing a subsection for her would be appropriate. The book is notable. 2.51.20.209 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Currently only one book illustrated. MightyWarrior (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest move to God Loves Hair and then delete redirect, maybe. But again, she has illustrated 5 books, so delete would also be a good option. 31.215.192.38 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I in no way mean to impunge the !votes or the editors themselves, but I'm a bit confused by the repeated suggestions that we redirect the article to God Loves Hair - as Soixante-neuf ;) points out abve, how is this possible, since that article does not even exist?! -just wondering, you understand. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article with additional references and would ask that all discussers and !voters re-evaluate the article. With the addition of more references this article subject passes WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has changed quite a bit since the most recent "delete" vote. Any comments on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Juliancolton I have added another reference and am doing more research about the article subject. I wish some editors that were here before would return to look at the revision of the article. I do not know if it would be proper to ping editors that have discussed or !voted here to return to take a second look. What do you think? Is that proper? Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pinging prior participants is acceptable and often encouraged. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of the article citations therein are blog interviews that are more about the self-promotion of the subject than establishing notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While sources do exist, many of them are passing mentions. But, to satisfy the GNG, there are a lot of these mentions. So I am thinking that for the stub article, there are enough sources to prove notability. L3X1 (distant write) 13:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the book God Loves Hair definitely meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, oh look "someone" has created an article on it Coolabahapple (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a fair numbers of the reviews of God Loves Hair emphasise the integral role of the illustrations to the stories and the book so it can be used as an indication of Neufeld's notability; that said, a fair number of editors are uncomfortable with the notion that someone is notable for one work/book (although as i like to bring up, there are always exceptions ie. (until recently) Harper Lee:)), so something else is probably needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, It is not just one book, she has also illustrated several books in the James Patterson Treasure Hunters series. That has been added to the article with a citation. Actually the article looks way different than when it was nominated. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi Antonioatrylia, re Treasure Hunters, are they illustrated books?, it appears that Neufeld is the cover artist, do reviews of these books discuss the illustrations? ie. like God Loves Hair? has Neufeld received any awards for her illustrations/art? or exhibited them? looking at WP:NPEOPLE having created works is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have looked into the Treasure Hunter series of books, yes they are illustrated books and Neufeld's illustrations are an integral part of them, some reviews: The New York Times - "These black-and-white illustrations are delightful — reminiscent of the elaborate doodles churned out in math class by the most awesome artist in seventh grade. Enthusiastic crosshatching, scribbly storm clouds and jagged lightning bolts burst with energy, and I enjoyed the shirtless stylings of girl-crazy, super-buff Tommy, a 17-year-old who “spends a lot of time on personal grooming.”"(Daring Deeds), Common Sense Media - "Cartoon-like black-and white illustrations by Juliana Neufeld add to the fun and make for smooth sailing, even for reluctant readers."(Treasure Hunters), Publishers Weekly - "adventures that Neufeld masterfully captures with humor and energy in b&w illustrations that have something of a Robert Neubecker vibe."(Treasure Hunters), so this looks like it may be a keeper. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a bit too thin. Sources do not cover the subject with any depth. Coverage of her work is not coverage of the subject. Her works (book illustrations) can be better covered separately with coverage of each book, until someone independent and reputable discusses the multiple illustrations collectively discussing style and differences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment God Loves Hair isn't turning up in any viable third-party sources either, and reviews alone do not notability make. The article creator is pulling the old "there's a lot of info out there on the web" schtick without actually including it in the article, other than links to meaningless book nominations that, again, do not make the book any more worthy of an article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, have a look at no. 1 of WP:NBOOK which specifically states that reviews (as long as independent and non-trivial) can be used for notability, the God Loves Hair article presently refers to 8 reviews that meet this requirement. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I often say TOOSOON as a way of making nice with minor W:CREATIVE types who look unlikely to ever pass the bar. Here, however, I mean it very precisely. This is an early career illustrator who has drawn attention from some reviewers for an illustrated book for children. there is every reasons to hope that she will go to illustrate more children's picture books that draw attention, or become a noted artist for some other body of work, or win a prize for her work. when one of those things happen, we can have an article about her. For now, however, we should delete, leaving the redlink at God Loves Hair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2017 (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.