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.
I met this article in a state of vandalism and copy vio. I deleted the information, tried to source it properly as an article, but though I'd be happy for it to be shown otherwise, I have been unable to find any sources so that he might pass WP:GNG, and he furthemore doesn't seem to fall into any of the criteria at WP:PROF. JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss 17:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, everyone. I am one of John Clapp's students. Me and another student were having a bit of fun and decided to edit his page. Everything after him being =tenured at sjsu is obviously not true, but all of the information about his education is legitimate information.
Apology accepted. I've nominated it for deletion not because of your edits themselves, but because they brought it to light and it doesn't seem to me to pass Wikipedia's standards of notability. If you can find any significant coverage of the guy (or anything at WP:PROF, then please bring it to our attention... it's probably a better use of your time, and would help rather than disrupt our processes :-). If not then his article is likely to be deleted. JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Unfortunately both those pages are not independent sources - one by his employers, and one by himself. Essentially he needs to have had significant coverage in independent sources such as in other third-party websites, newspapers, books etc. JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing these. The book offers some hope for keeping the article, but I think more reliable secondary sources still need to be found to assert significance. Unfortunately LinkedIn is not used to verify notability (see WP:ELPEREN for an explanation) and interviews are not secondary sources and so are not suitable either. JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would i need to find to assert significance? Should i show you a list of students whose lives he's changed with his peerless teaching skills? He is highly regarded here as an educator, and you've seen the work he's done for books. I'm not sure how many news articles there are about children's book illustrators. I don't quite see how what I've given you isn't enough to verify the reliability of this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.249.103 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern. Whilst I am sure he is highly regarded at your institution and influential in his teaching, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so relies on the testimony of published, reliable, third-party sources to ascertain worldly notability. You can read more about this at WP:N. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth, and so if it cannot be verified that he is notable, then it must be considered that he is not notable. I would certainly expect this to be true of a comic artist too – perhaps not newspapers but certainly reviews, features in magazines, awards, etc. Hope this clarifies things a bit :-). JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss 19:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well here are a couple of reviews of his books. They mostly talk about the book, but what they say about John Clapp's art is all good.
Thanks again for these; it is certainly making the process easier for other editors :-). Those references help, but I don't think I'm going to withdraw this nomination because the references contain only passing references. Also, ratemyprof is not a reliable source because it can be written by anyone and is not a good indicator of being "cited by peers or successors". Keep a look out for other good references, as will I, but I think the AfD should run its course for the moment. I'm still not convinced of his notability just yet per what I have said above. Hopefully there should be some community input soon. JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've done some work improving the sourcing for this. I think the brief but positive coverage of his book illustrations in major media across the country may be enough to establish notability and the page on him in New's book provides the necessary depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2012 (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.
