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. Sandstein 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Anonymous Boy

Anonymous Boy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Questionable notability, few if any reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer ( talk) 15:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Googling for information about him under his penname is predictably difficult, and the scene/era of his greatest notability is notoriously smallpress and offline. But this academic source lists him under "Significant people, organizations and subjects" (alongside quite a few people we have articles for), which is an attestation of notability. [1] It's a "passing mention" to be sure, but the fact that NYTimes sought him out to include in this group photo reflects his notability. [2] - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Just not notable. According to present sources, searching, and the two provided above the subject does not pass WP:ARTIST. If we have to consider a name drop from a picture that includes 98 other people (nytimes) or passing mention, as a "hint" of possible notability, that is stretching things. A good indication of failing notability guidelines would be when a penname is predictably difficult to find in a search. Another indicator would be when information is "notoriously smallpress and offline". I opened a lot of tabs trying to verify the unsourced content of the "Comics and Artistic Work" and the short story "Green Pubes" (presented as being "the first animated queercore movie"), other than through IMDb. Print work on pins and tee shirts (artist) did return needed sources. As a BLP there are some demands that sourcing should be better. Otr500 ( talk) 02:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

To clarify: the reason his penname is difficult to search for is because it is a common generic phrase; the googlability of a subject's name should not be the standard for notability, nor should we presume that only things easily found that way matter. Queer punk media and the early queer sociopolitical movement were covered mostly within that community – with some lesser acknowledgement by others – but that's just marginalized groups getting shoved to the margins. The Queer Zine Archive Project [3] and Queer Zine Explosion identify him as noteworthy within that scene, indicating that he is (per WP:ARTIST) "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". He was definitely groundbreaking and influential ("Anonymous Boy's drawings of punk guys in love have been gracing the pages of zines and the covers of records since the days of JDs.") [4] "G.B. Jones and Bruce LaBruce’s seminal JDs (1985-1991), for example, featured early work by lesbian cartoonist Carrie McNinch, and Tony Arena’s first Anonymous Boy cartoons. .... [which] can be seen as among the first in what I call the “Second Wave” of LGBT comics and creators." –"The History of Gay Male Comics in America from Before Stonewall to the 21st Century", Sina Shamsavari, London College of Fashion, International Journal of Comic Art [5]. Additionally, the ACT UP Oral History Project's interview with him and his partner [6] provide a bit more substantial coverage of him and reflects how his place in queer history is regarded. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 04:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Just because sources are difficult to locate doesn't mean they don't exist, this is especially true re: print sources which I suspect are more forthcoming given this subject's age and artistic medium. Given the subject was a columnist for Maximum RocknRoll among other things noted above I'm quite certain that, should any editor do the groundwork, reliable sources will be found. Better to leave this article in place so that this work can be done. TheMusicExperimental ( talk) 06:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not seeing any good sources right now, and a claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is just wishful thinking, I am afraid. Until they are found, this has to stand on its own, but sadly, it fails WP:NCREATIVE and like. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

JasonAQuest I am not against being shown that my assessment might be in error but the concept of original research would be making statements not backed up by sources to show that an individual or Wikipedia is not the author. Words like "important figure" (as a rationale to clear WP:ARTIST) and "reflects his place in queer history is regarded", need more than some samples of his artwork and one interview, that would show the subject was more than just another editorial cartoonist. These statements need to be backed up by sources that use or indicate specifically the wording. What we consider as "important" or specifically "historically important" needs to be covered as such in reliable sources otherwise it is just an opinion or original research.

I couldn't view the source International Journal of Comic Art so can't comment on it. I do know that we need to discern between independant, non-independent, and Indiscriminate sources to see if there is actual support to advance encyclopedic notability. There is evidence that the subject contributed to more than just Maximum RocknRoll but if that were the only criteria then all contributors (editorial or drawings) to magazines, newspapers, or articles would be notable. I do know this type of sourcing (aortamagazine used in the article) should be banned from Wikipedia as pure advertisement. That an editor that viewed the source would even remotely consider it appropriate would make the head of a nail hurt. Otr500 ( talk) 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• comment I'd like to see a couple stronger sources than the 4 offered in the original article. As it stands now, it leans toward not yet meeting WP:GNG 10Sany1? ( talk) 20:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I don't see where this subject meets WP:GNG the two keep arguments are very weak amounting to "there are better references we just can't find them." Jeepday ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep One reference in this journal International Journal of Comic Art, and several references in books about gay comic art. Seems a good encyclopedia article in my mind.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, for the reasons concertmusic gave above. - gtrmp ( talk) 22:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not nearly enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. The "article" listed just above is... I'm not sure what. It appears like either a term paper, or the text of a lecture. Regardless, even it only has two brief mentions, hardly in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:14, 10 December 2020 (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.