Talk:Erol Otus

Fansites

They are neat and all but one is enough don't you think? - Dicecollector29 (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No I never think that one information source is enough. 71.154.214.235 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are normally to be avoided. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper removal of the Notability Templates

I note that Dicecollector29 has removed the notability cleanup template from the article Erol Otus with the comment "starting cleanup - notability esteblished via reference of extensive tsr contributions and imdb".

Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. Since the sources cited (pen-paper.net and imdb) are directories, they do not meet the criteria of reliable sources: see WP:BIO for details.

As this article have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability, I am requesting that the cleanup template be restored, so that editors other than yourself will be alerted to the fact that additional citations are required.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A person who contributes major illustrations to an internationally published and highly successful series of books, supplements, aides (i.e. Dungeons & Dragons) during its most notable years of activity is a notable individual. He has fan sites galore, tribute pages, homage, a long history of contribution across a couple generations of individuals. Non-notable people do not have these things. The sites provided are more than adequate. It would not be very difficult to find more references and it would not be difficult to pollute his page with a giant list of his actual contributions (like a filmography list), but why do that? The sites listed are completely satisfactory to show he has done the work claimed, and if he did this work, he is then notable.

Ease back a few notches, Gavin. The notability guidelines on Wikipedia are just guidelines, not Stasi ritual. You are splitting hairs here with poor Erol as there is no "letter" of policy to be enforced and no wild disregard for policy going on. Even if these two sites are barely acceptable, they are still acceptable. I also do not understand why you provided a link to the FICTION notability page. There is no fiction here as this is an artist's biography. Dicecollector29 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the notability guidelines in one important respect: a topic cannont be deemed to be notable just becuase you say so. Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. This article does not have reliable sources, and until it does, the notability template should remain. Please reinstate the template as requested. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These sources are indeed reliable. "Pen and Paper" is an excellent source, and has an Alexa rank of 159,011 with hundreds of incoming links. Furthermore, searching for "erol otus" -wikipedia results in more than 8,000 hits. Erol Otus' work has been globally consumed since the 1970's. Erol Otus hardly needs my few words on this page to assert his notability, and it is as easy for you to spend a couple of minutes looking around online as it is for me. I say again, Gavin, please try contributing something more useful than adding tags to articles. In any case, I see someone else is busy adding references, so this whole discussion is getting more moot by the minute. Dicecollector29 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pen and paper is a directory, and like Ghits, is not a reliable source - see WP:BIO for details. Until reliable secondary source have been added, I shall be grateful if you would restore the notability template; remember, it is not your opinion alone that can be taken as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to restore the template, Gavin. Nothing in the suggested notability/verify guidelines would seem to disqualify the references now in place on the EO article. Thanks for your diligence, however, as the article is now much improved from its last few versions. - Dicecollector29 (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Official website

I really think his official website should be removed because its not even up yet. If it ever is finished, someone can bring the link back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.148.16 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)