Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio Lacerda

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Lacerda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Great art, but I'm not seeing the notability of the artist as a person. Having artwork used in museum exhibits (assuming that is what the first source states) seems hardly sufficient to fulfill any criteria, and the other two sources are passing mentions. My googling doesn't reveal anything more suitable either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for creation of the article was Julio's section in Steve White's book, Dinosaur Art II. Here he does not just have a passing mention, he has an entire 11-page section about him and his art. Nevertheless, I agree the case is borderline so I understand if this is not notable enough for Wikipedia. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ferahgo. James500 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you agree it's borderline? Because that is what Ferhago says. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are three sources given in the article, and they are all I could also find in a search. The first, a book, is presumably a good source. the next two are minor mentions, less than a sentence each. That means that there is a lack of SIGCOV in multiple sources, so it is clearly a delete. His work is very nice, however, so I think there will be coverage in future. At the moment, however, it is clearly WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although weak-ish. I feel that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE with his contribution to the field of paleoart. For example: "Special thanks to the outstanding Julio Lacerda for the excellent artwork he produced for this project" in Scientific American blog. Also: "Dinosaur Art II: The Cutting Edge of Paleoart is a dispatch from this internet age of paleontology... (...) Some of the featured illustrators, like Brazil’s Julio Lacerda, create digital images that look like photographic collages..." in The Atlantic. I think this is sufficient to justify a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2018 (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.