Talk:James Sherman (comics)
(Redirected from Talk:James Sherman (comic book artist))
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Zeborah in topic Untitled
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 20, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editYes, i am aware this page probably conforms to no style guide known to man. Aapold 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Deletion?
He was an important comic book artist, one still is commonly cited as a favorite legion artist. The artist immediately prior to him on the run, Mike Grell, has a page, as does the one who followed him Joe Staton. I had kind of thought to make a category going through all the main legion artists, of which he certainly is.
I cited one source because that had most of the relevant info, and it is a source highly regarded in legion fandom.
I tried to reference it better. If you do google searches on James Sherman you'll find various links to his work on covers as well.
I vote against deletion. Aapold 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- To vote you need to go to the articles for deletion page. However, you should probably be aware of the arguments that you'll be up against.
- The main criteria for an article to be included in Wikipedia are that it should be on a topic which is "notable" - this is jargon meaning that the topic should have been discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources. 'Multiple' is obvious, 'reliable' means that it should be a respected source (like newspapers, journals, books - websites run by respectable organisations are allowed, but personal blogs and fansites aren't), 'secondary' in this context means primarily that it's not the person talking about themself, not the company who published him talking about him, and not examples of the work itself, but rather things that someone else has written 'about' him and 'about' his work.
- If you point out that Grel and Staton have pages, people will go to those pages (as I just did) and point out that their pages don't assert 'notability' either. At best, they'll dismiss your argument as synonymous with "Other crap exists"; at worst they'll put the Grel and Staton pages up for deletion as well.
- The way to win the argument is to find something (eg reviews) written in a newspaper or respectable comics magazine, or something along those lines, which discuss him (not just mention his name in passing). The "Legion Companion" interview is a good start, and I've just found a reference to:
- Sherman, James--Miscellanea.
- Entry (p. 331) in The Who's Who of American Comic Books, by
- Jerry Bails & Hames Ware (Detroit, Mich. : J. Bails,
- 1973-1976).
- (listed on a Michigan State University Libraries page) - if you have the book, or can find it somewhere and substantiate that he does have an entry in it, this would be brilliant
- And if you can find something else as well that'd be even better. --Zeborah 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)