Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:53, 23 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Visual arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Visual arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Visual arts. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

For Visual arts listings only:

A simple tag to put on AfD discussions as an alternative to the coding given above under "tag an AFD" is:

It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

Visual arts

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 merge to Australian National University. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art

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

Lacks media coverage. The three mentions in ArtNotes are quite short; one gives a little detail about the prize; the other two only mention the winner. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it isn't notable, we should transwiki or create a page on Commons given that project has many related images. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and reasonable article about an aspect of contemporary art in Australia. Good credentials with hosting organisation and judging panel. An ongoing event. Refs also given from The Canberra Times. At the very least merge to Australian National University. No cause for deletion. Ty 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but I would say that, as I am the person who created the page, and I was the President/Chairman of the organiation at the time of its endowment and creation (some AU$17,000). The annual prize has been AU$5,000. The point of the Prize was that people would create religious-themed art. This has been a national as well as local prize, for the Australian Capital Territory but also Australia and internationally. Hundreds of artists have participated through the arrangement and sponsorship by the Australian National University and its Institute of Art. Even if this prize dies out, it has been a significant art prize, and deserves to be memorialised. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian National University - not enough coverage to have an independent article, but a well-sourced paragraph on this on the University's article would be relevant. Claritas § 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian National University or keep, I don't see the point of deletion...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why "Lacks media coverage" is an argument for deletion, let alone a sufficient argument for deletion. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By "Lacks media coverage", I am saying that I dont believe it is notable. i.e. this article fails the policy WP:N, IMO. The Canberra Times is the local newspaper for the region where the ANU is situated; we generally disregard such sources as evidence of notability because they are reporting on local issues. As far as I can tell, this is the only newspaper which has ever mentioned the Phoenix Prize. Being attached to a university doesn't automatically make an award notable; external recognition of the award is required. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 28 June 2010 (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.

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 speedily deleted, hoax, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathieu_Ógan and Special:DeletedContributions/Alexantonios. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar West

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

Unverifiable; possible hoax snigbrook (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a medium for defining new concepts. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "sources" are not. For an AfD of more of the same, see this stuff. The creator of this whimsy has been trying and failing to convince since 2006. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT, WP:N, to name a few, not to mention the above and nomination.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:02, 25 June 2010 (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.

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 redirect to Mount Loura. Article has already been redirected so let's close it that way. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Maali

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

Possibily hoax as the only reference to it that I could find is the unsourced article Mount Loura. Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a hoax. See the Guinea 10,000-franc banknote at this website. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Search for "Dame de Mali". See [1] and various tourist guides at G-Books. In my opinion, redirect to Mount Loura is the most sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Mount Loura. The author of this article thinks that it is man-made but offers no evidence to that effect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Regarding the origin of "the lady of mali" there are two dominant versions:

1. It is a natural granite formation.

2. It is made by man.

both versions are valid and accepted by scholars and nonacademic people, is necessary to respect the plurality of the media and even more because in Peru there are others findings even with correlation of similar attire.

1. I propose the restructuring of the article based on these two versions.

2. I invite you to join in the discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan L. Bacigalupo (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you cite any reliable sources for the second theory? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response: Pitoni Angelo; 1995 "Il mistero della vita" (original version in Italian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.55.30 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect to Mount Loura per nom, RHaworth, and author's track record. The former article now redirects to Lady of Mali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per these edits, 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC), so the redirect and its target are now the subjects of this discussion. — Jeff G. ツ 02:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the author's track record, this article and redirect, Palaeoarchaeology, and Supermegalith have been spammed several times by Juan L. Bacigalupo, using that account and using or influencing the users of various Peruvian IP Addresses matching 186.160/14, 190.43.160/19, and 190.81.128/17. — Jeff G. ツ 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mount Loura and Lady of Maali are different concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.72.70 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I observe very little information about the "Lady of Mali" this phenomenon occurs mainly in the English language. Tip: see "Lady of mali" in other languages. Please use translators, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.53.168 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (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.

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. –MuZemike 23:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Fields

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

Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has published illustrations in several books and games which makes him notable. The article is moreover sourced by third-party material and does therefore not fail WP:BLP nor WP:N. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the guy's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I started this one back in November, and I'll admit I didn't use any citations at the time (my bad). Fortunately, in March, the article was built up a fair bit and a source was added. Since this was done fairly recently, I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NRVE, WP:BURDEN. You have to provide the sources, not just allude to them possibly existing.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable, independent sources. So obscure is this unnotable comic book artist that most of the hits I found were about different Fred Fieldses, most of whom have a better claim to notability than this one. Seriously, check out Google Books if you don't believe me. Reyk _YO! 00:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources (the one in the article is from a magazine his artwork appears in). Notability is demonstrated through coverage, which this person does not seem to have garnered. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added one - or at least the hint of one; I'll try to dig up more info on that regarding his appearance in a current exhibit in Chicago. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good find, however, since it's just one exhibit with his works amongst many others, it's probably not enough to pass the criteria offered by WP:ARTIST.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that just appears to be a flyer for an exhibition. It doesn't really tell us anything about this person. Quantpole (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and Quantpole. Codf1977 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable claims of notability. Hooper (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. Brandon (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Knutson

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Part of a large walled garden. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not fail WP:BLP because it is sourced by third-party material. The publication of Knutson's artwork moreover makes him notable. Sources can probably be improved but there is no need to delete this article. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the person's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior Keep votes. I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prior keep votes are extremely weak. There is no evidence of notability within the article, nor is there anything in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N based on what's actually in the article not my confidence about what's out in cyberspace somewhere, somehow, some time. I see the article canvass squad have heard the call. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:N because of the lack of substantial, independent coverage. The claim that his work being notable makes him notable cannot be sustained because it requires us to deny WP:NOTINHERITED, as well as WP:AUTHOR. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NOTINHERITED makes clear that notablity can be "inherited" from notable work to creator; the major source of notability for creative artists/craftspersons is their creation of notable work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is just another nomination in a string of IDONTLIKEIT deletion noms by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Ellen Brown

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only independent source given is The Birmingham News. I couldn't find the cited article from 2004, but did get 2 hits from 2008, however coverage was trivial, not significant.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Claritas § 17:16, 19 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bonner

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability, or reliable sources; this is almost a speedy delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (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.

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 keep. –MuZemike 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Martinière

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

Delete per WP:BLP, WP:N and WP:NOT a personal resume hosting website. The subject severely lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the subject seems to have won a Hugo Award, which is pretty prestigious. Seems relatively notable & I found a few citations. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My thoughts are that the WP:BLP should have been the subject of at least two pieces of non-trivial coverage provided by a reliable third party source. Do you find any evidence of that? (Or at least one?) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's cool - I wasn't sure if that was worth notability or not (not been around for a while). Actually now i think about it probably not. I cited it in the article anyway in case it sways anyone :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Hugo nominations, plus a win, plus numerous other awards, is not considered "significant critical attention"? News to me. --GrifterMage (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugo Award winner and Emmy award nominee. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Hugo Award winner. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without any sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, this is nowhere near a "speedy keep". Its more like a slow delete. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winner and 4-time nominee of the Hugo award, the highest honor in speculative fiction and art. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with those above me, although the article could use more citations. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as he's won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist, and a pile of other awards listed here. He is absolutely notable. The nominator obviously didn't even bother to review the articles s/he nominated (see here). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can say absolutely about the subject of this article is that non-trivial coverage from independent reliable third party publications is explicitly lacking. One would think that if winning a Hugo award somehow makes someone inherently notable, they would have some sort of coverage to follow and validate that suggestion. I'm not seeing it, are you? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One would think you had read the guidelines and policies you were quoting as foundation for these noms. Being an award winner of one or more notable awards qualifies anyone for notability. And it's very likely that all of these award-winning artists have been covered in one or more magazine and newspaper articles. You can verify the winning of the awards using multiple sites (and many of them are already verified in the articles). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm familiar with what I'm quoting, and I feel I'm being fair and consistent here in my readings of WP:BLP and other relevant policies/guidelines. This person may have won an award, but it doesn't seem they've received any kind of substantial or non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point and I'll withdraw this nomination straightaway. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BLP is not an article inclusion policy; it only applies to sourcing of information within articles about living people, not whether an article should exist. That's what WP:N is about. This discussion is about whether the article should exist here or not, so let's stick to the relevant policies, okay? Winning multiple notable awards more than qualifies the individual as notable due to his work receiving "significant critical attention" and the artist being "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (especially the Hugo Award and the Chesley Award, which are the top awards in his field). The information can be sourced due to the high profile of the awards. I'll see what I can do to add more sources (though the Hugo already has multiple sources). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, any Hugo winner is ipso facto notable. Rate the article as Stub- or Start-class if you think it's lacking sources. —WWoods (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple significant awards and nominations, cited in the article, sufficient to meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:31, 25 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Detwiller

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't find substantial, independent coverage on this person. There's lots of stuff by him, but not a lot about him which suggests that he's prolific but that this hasn't translated into being very influential. Reyk _YO! 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A game designer is notable if they have created notable works, which this person has done. Dream Focus 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was interviewed in Examiner.com but I can't link to that interview because that website is on the Wikipedia blacklist right now. Dream Focus 00:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner is not a reliable source. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Examiner.com is about as wise as citing a common everyday blog. There's good reason its on the Wikipedia blacklist. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well known and influential figure within the RPG world. I've added a number of sources and will continue to source and expand the article. Artw (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Most reference are about games he worked on and mention him or interview him, however there are no references that highlight him as a developer. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing appears to be sufficient now. BOZ (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable based upon Origins Awards, publications, and refs.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in sources, all non-primary sources are trivial mentions. SnottyWong ^communicate 04:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has written and illustrated a number of notable books for RPGs and is well-known in the RPG world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a winner of multiple Origins Awards. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the reasons cited above. Hooper (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable based on awards. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - created award-winning work and it can clearly be expanded into a well rounded article. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO and arguably also WP:GNG. Claritas § 15:58, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harrison (comic artist)

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

DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established british comicbook artist with a long history of work. Article could do with some better sources but is esentially sound, and has sources sufficent to meet WP:N (Lambiek etc...) Not seeing any particular BLP issues Artw (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- six sources, of which none are sufficient to meet WP:N. There's two blogs, one thing that Harrison wrote himself, a passing mention on some comic that Harrison could not get published and has had to self-publish online. The least insubstantial of these sources is a single paragraph on the Lambiek thing, and just looking at that site makes me doubt its reliability. Reyk _YO! 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lambiek Comiclopedia is actually pretty well established and respected. It's been used as a reference multiple times on Wikipedia. Artw (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone's work is notable, then they are notable for creating it. As for coverage, searching the news archives for his name and "comic book" I find some results. [2] The Washington Times one can be used to verify he is the comic book artist who did work on the Ultimates first issue. Of course that information can be found on Marvel's official website, listing the credits. The Altanta Journal article seems to be about some of his work. Its pay-per-view so I can't access it, only the summary listed in the Google news search. Dream Focus 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Someone's work being notable does not necessarily equate to the person being notable. Reyk _YO! 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure the Atlanta Journal article is not about him, FWIW. Plenty of other sources out there to add to the article though. Artw (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Washington Times piece does appear to cover his work (I'd guess Glimmer rats or Durham Red) but access looks tricky

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk. The sources in this article do not establish notability per WP:N. SnottyWong ^converse 04:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Reyk and Snottywong, there's simply not enough coverage for him to meet the WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE either. Claritas § 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Artw. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications please leave me a note on my talk page and I will withdraw this nomination. "Comiclopedia", "Comic Book DB", and a bunch of other blogs and directory sites don't really pass muster. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While databases (and other tertiary sources aren't a sing of notability, as their remit is clearly to include as much as possible) Lambiek and their Comiclopedia is reliable and inclusion there can be seen a sign of an artist's importance (as they don't try to be comprehensive, focusing on the bigger names), especially for European artists where coverage might not be as extensive as American artists. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I'm still working on digging out the sources - there is a solid interview (in print and not online as far as I can tell) and good coverage in Thrill Power Overload (about the history of 2000AD) - there are also a pretty impressive review [3]. I would like to see more on his concept work but that should be enough to get a well rounded article out of this, Lambiek helps as I mention above (there is also a mini-profile from John Freeman (an expert on British comics) which summarises his importance: "a stunning talent whose work towers above many other fully painted art strip creators" [4]). io9 called Loose Cannons "the best sci-fi comic that you've never seen" [5]. I might suggest a move to Mark Harrison (artist) if this is kept as "comic artist" isn't really in line with WP:NCC (although there are a few others around). (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Oh and WP:BEFORE #3 - no attempt was made to flag concerns about this article. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, exactly as as per Emperor. Vizjim (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2010 (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.

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. –MuZemike 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Hoover

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

Delete. Supposedly this person is most famous for designing a "hotly desired" MTG card, yet I cannot find any sort of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications detailing that fact. Interestingly, this was nominated for deletion back in 2007 and survived. I believe that our policies regarding WP:BLP articles have greatly improved since then and don't think this meets our current definition of a notable biography in terms of inclusion due to the outright lack of coverage this subject has received (or failed to). JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Collectible card gaming magazines certainly do not meet WP:RS, and are also not necessarily independent of the subject. Claritas § 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Collectible card gaming magazines are certainly reliable sources as they are the specialist journals which cover the art and other aspects of this major genre. This just seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Colonel Warden, and wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of sources could be used for all the other Magic artist articles nominated for AFD recently; pity I don't have any myself. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion hasn't changed from last time. Mild keep. DS (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same with DS and Colonel Warden, my opinion is unchanged from 2007. Keep. Nathan^T 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you? Did you change your name? I see no "Nathan" commenting during the 2007 discussion and the closing administrator should have a chance to evaluate your rationale if your opinion has not changed. Colonel Warden isn't doing you any favors either, as the subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party outlets. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources as per nom and Claritas Codf1977 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Colonel Warden said it best above. Hooper (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Nielsen

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

Delete. Some minor/passing coverage does exist in news sources, but not enough to meet the definition of WP:N in my opinion. Falls flat. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep--as I said in the previous AfD. I see no reason to change my mind, though I am disappointed that no one saw fit to add the sources mentioned previously. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the soureces, than you should add them per WP:BURDEN. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have them too now--there's a link to the Google Archive search at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terese Nielsen, but I'm sure you found all those, given WP:BEFORE. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated in my nomination, there are some passing mentions, but nothing substantial. Here we are. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is both a comic book artist who has produced notable work (Ruins) and one of the most well-known and popular Magic: The Gathering artists. Furthermore, "Terese Nielsen" gets over 200,000 hits on Google. —Lowellian (reply) 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lowellian. BOZ (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. The argument that it is not a directory, is overruled by the fact that sources were found for more than four of the artists. (and they are independently notable) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering artists

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

Delete. Non-notable list construed of mostly original research, and those who are listed are mostly non-notable as well. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What exactly makes a list notable? Anyway I strongly disagree with the original research accusation: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Where exactly does the article violate that one? There is actually not a single original thought in it. The stuff can be looked up in the Gatherer on the Wizards site, too.

Regarding the non-notability of the individuals. Just that right now most of the artists don't have Wikipedia pages doesn't make them non-notable per se. In the last couple of months many have gotten articles, that did not have any before. That actually suggests that there might be a couple of others that don't have articles, but are notable, too.

Eventually I might agree that this list should be deleted, but I find your arguments not convincing, mostly because there is just not much argumentation in them right now. OdinFK (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apologies, I haven't played since the Urza's Saga, so I'm not current on the community surrounding M:TG. So, is the Gatherer a reliable source? If it is, and I'll presume so for the moment, then we have an article with that as its sole source. It might be better to simply provide that sole source as a link on artist articles, and on the article for Magic (or for the art of Magic, if we have one). We then add all of the artist articles to a suitable category. Their involvement in M:TG is highlighted, and we prevent the appearance of Original Research. The fact that so many artists are redlinked indicates that overall notability might not be present - but some of the blue-linked artists make up for that. It's a tricky question. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Gatherer is not a reliable source as it is a primary source and not independent, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. See WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:N.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatherer is certainly a reliable source, as it is made by Wizards of the Coast. You are correct that it is not independent, so it doesn't establish notability, but that doesn't mean it isn't reliable. Being reliable and showing notability are two different things. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be reliable to verify mundane information (e.g. in this case that particular artist does/did work for WOTC on Magic: The Gathering, just like you could use BP sources to verify who is working for them), but not so much for challengable claims (e.g. you could not use BP sources to verify any statement about wrongdoing or lack thereof from the company with regards the current oil spill).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a clear cut case of WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINK.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that the nominator has also put the following Magic artist articles up for AFD as well: Paul Bonner, Sue Ellen Brown, David A. Cherry, Dennis Detwiller, Fred Fields, Mark Harrison (comic artist), David Ho (artist), Quinton Hoover, Dana Knutson, Stephan Martinière, and Terese Nielsen. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Vohwinkel, John Zeleznik, Nene Thomas, and Randy Post are also up for AFD. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTDIR and seems to be mostly original research. Any sources provided fail WP:RS and aren't independent. Claritas § 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree entirely with Claritas. Reyk _YO! 04:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that WP:NOTDIR would apply here. Most of the artists on the list aren't notable, and those that are notable are mainly notable for other things. However, I don't think I would consider anything in this list to be original research, as the information in the article can easily be verified with Gatherer. Calathan (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The game is notable, and some of the artists are as well, but the combination doesn't appear to be. (Many of the artist's links are either dabs or redirects to their game companies.) At least I could find no independent source that would support the notability of this combination. I suggest ~~adding the linked artists to a Category:Magic: The Gathering artists and~~ userfying ~~the remainder~~ (for future reference).—RJH (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm mostly responsible for the existence of this list and I would like to thank those people, that actually said something constructive. I created the list quite some time ago and frankly I did not know very much about what is a feasible topic for an article and what not. Of course notability criteria are something open to debate still, but apparently there is a consensus that this list fails them. No problems with that, but being the one that has put the effort into this list I appreciate it very much when one of you says something like "I suggest userfying for future refernce" instead of just yelling "clear case of WP:NOTDIR". Apologies if anybody feels offended by that, but just saying "It's bad" might be good for the Wikipedia in the short term because a bad article goes off. Giving some feedback is a lot better longterm, because it helps fellow Wikipedians (in this case: me) to improve in their "WP-skills" instead of possibly alienating people that want to help. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Nihonjoe below, or Userfy, if OdinFK is willing to accept that? BOZ (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Keep on Stephan Martinière as he's won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist, and a pile of other awards listed here. He is absolutely notable. The nominator obviously didn't even bother to review the articles s/he nominated here as this section has been in the article since 2008. This should cast doubt on all the articles nommed, as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Moved Keep !votes to specific AfDs for the four artists I've mentioned. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add David Ho (artist) to my Super Strong Keep opinion as he is award-winning as well. Needs a few good refs, but he's award-winning. Dennis Detwiller is a Keep as the refs are decent enough to meet minimum notability (including winning an award). David A. Cherry is a Super Strong Keep as a winner of 8 Chesley Awards. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is for the list, not the individual artists on the list. You should post your comments on the AfDs for the artists pages, not here. Whether or not this list gets deleted is completely separate from whether any individual artists pages get deleted. If you post comments here for other AfDs, then they may go unnoticed, as completely different admins may close the different AfDs. Calathan (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somehow I ended up here instead of there when I followed links about this. Zannen. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of artists isn't a directory, and this reasonably meets WP:CLN as a list that's useful and completable. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the list meets WP:CLN. It wouldn't be difficult to add a requirement to link to a reliable source or have the list be only those artists who have enwiki pages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Useful list, turns out a bunch of them are pretty notable. Artw (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game is notable, as are most of the artists, and they are almost always credited publicly. Criteria for making the list are crystal clear, and the list is hardly random or irrelevant to either the game or the artists' careers. I don't see the problem. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is obviously not original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list has value, a number of the artists are themselves independently notable of their own accord, and the list could be successfully completed and referenced to reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a perfectly sensible list organizing the artists who worked on an indisputably notable product, and I see a large proportion of blue links, indicating that these aren't just mere non-notable graphic designers. There may be some who will never get articles, or there may be some who have them but should not, but there is clearly no requirement that every element of a list should itself merit an article. This is akin to giving the credits for a motion picture, but obviously this credits list is too long to be incorporated elsewhere. The claim above that the company that published the Magic cards can not provide a reliable source for crediting the artists of those cards is complete nonsense, so this list is clearly not irredeemably OR. postdlf (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hélio Cunha

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

Primarily a WP:V problem, it's hard to say if there's also a WP:N problem. Lack of any coverage in Google News and the like makes it difficult for this article to pass the basic notability guideline. With respect to WP:ARTIST, which is more specific, there's no coverage that would confer the article notability on most of the points (the exhibitions have apparently not gotten coverage, etc.) with the exception of 4(d) "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.". The article does claim inclusion in several galleries and museums, some of which are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but I other than the artist's web site, I haven't been able to find any verificiation for any of those claims. I did find one piece listed in a database of the collection of the Saramento museum ( http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.csarmento.uminho.pt/nephl_3152.asp%3Foffset%3D288&ei=2twaTIOJIovUNeTHzMsL&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ7gEwATgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522H%25C3%25A9lio%2BDomingues%2Bda%2BCunha%2522%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN ).

In general, however, I haven't figured out how to source nearly any statement in this article through reliable, secondary sources independent of the author, most of what's out there is essentially WP-mirrored, from the artist himself, or from information provided by the artist to galleries, etc. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced since August 2008 and notability is not clear since there seems to be no coverage by third-part sources. The piece listed in the database of Saramento Museum was offered by the painter himself, so I think we should not consider as a evidence of notability. Lechatjaune (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Painting

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

Non-notable something. The style and self-congratulatory nature of the article make it difficult to know just what this "thing" that artist William Quigley created should be called, but given its lack of coverage in any media, it doesn't appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although William Quigley seems to have attracted enough notoriety to have an article of his own [6], this LeRoyNeimanesque series of American Civil War paintings seems to have escaped notice [7]. Wikipedia may have an art gallery, but it is not an art studio. Mandsford 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete The article is insufferably precious and nauseating in its writing, full of terms such as "languid glamorama," and absolute word salad gibberish, but that falls under the need for editing rather than the question of notability. It does not appear to be "spam" by attempting to sell the artworks in question. Quigley seems a talented and innovative artist, and the work(s) could be mentioned in a better written article about him. Per his web site [8] under "Articles" Quigley has had coverage in a number of reliable sources.Edison (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Ipiña

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

WP:N and WP:V concerns. Passing mention of an exhibition at the Org. of American States (see OAS external link), one or two passing mentions in Google News. No other signficant, reliable secondary coverage that I can find, although I may be missing other sources--I don't see enough material to write a biographical article from. Unsourced for nearly three years. (Neutrality tagged for most of that time as well.) j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is mention of several exhibitions, but not enought to meet WP:N in my opinion. Doesn't seem to be the subject of any articles or books. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (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.

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Please hide this section when it is empty - closed items may be left here or moved to the archive

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hélio Cunha}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil War Painting}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hepburn}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Ipiña}}
 <!--