Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Poole

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 Move to draft. The !vote count here is much closer to NC than it is to a delete consensus, but reading the individual arguments to keep, I don't see any real policies being argued here. Notability is about WP:RS, and there don't seem to be any here. Arguments such as, I suspect that there are others out there, don't carry any weight. Nor do assertions that it Passes WP:ARTIST, with no explanation of why.

Respect to Hobit for at least being up front that his argument was based on WP:IAR, and based largely on that, I'm going to go with SwisterTwister's draft suggestion instead of an outright delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Mark Poole

Mark Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Very little about this niche artist in independent, reliable sources. Lots of stuff on commercial sites. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The closest he comes is #3 of WP:ARTIST, but he doesn't completely satisfy that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Two references are given, one a dead link the other a link to a page that provides no information about Poole. This article completely fails to satisfy in WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. No independent, reliable sources at all.Mduvekot (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe he passes #4b of WP:ARTIST because his reinterpration of Ancestral Recall was the grand prize of the 2005 Gen Con Vintage Championship. Also, Ancestral Recall is one of the rarest nine original Magic the Gathering cards named the Power Nine. Finally, he has created images outside of Magic the Gathering, such as World of Warcraft and Sony Online Entertainment, which should be able to pass WP:BASIC. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

4(b) is "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". How does a prize for a tournament at a convention become a substantial part of a significant exhibitionMduvekot (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per MrLinkinPark333 - also, two new sources have been added, and I suspect that there are others out there. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Gen Con is a convention, which means (i believe) also an exhibition. The prize was a reinterpretation of a rare and limited Magic the Gathering card that he created. Gen Con is a significant convention, and having this rare card as the main prize is a substantial part. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Sorry, but some award at a convention is not notable. And the 3 additional references added to the article do nothing to help this person's notability. One is not independent, one is a well, I'm not sure what... it's from the Daily Press and seems to contain an advert for some convention - as such, again, non-independent source. And the final is an article which only gives a brief mention to Poole. "Suspecting" that other sources are out there isn't a valid criterion for keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've just added a few references that show that he was an Artist Guest of Honor at a few conventions. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - That's nice - still doesn't show how he meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Guest appearances at non-notable conventions actually show how thin his resume truly is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete at best for now because this is still questionably better and solid for mainspace, Draft at best for now for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If this one winds up not being kept, I would support your idea of moving to Draft for improvements. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:ARTIST. Andrew D. (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Both WP:ARTIST and WP:BASIC require independent sources, which are lacking. All of the current sources are convention listings or company profiles, which are mundane and commercially associated with Poole. I really don't think the Gen Con thing counts as a notable exhibition in this case. His painting was an element of a prize awarded to someone else, he did not win a prize himself, and the only reason he was involved was because he painted the original version of the "Ancestral Recall" card. No disrespect to Poole, but the lack of independent coverage suggests that's mainly about game rules. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG and that award, that's not enough for notability. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Grayfell, and Drmies. There simply isn't enough independent and comprehensive coverage here. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Incubate in draft space. For me personally this is a weak delete right now, but I feel like it's been inching closer to notability over the past two weeks, and with deeper digging, more sources could eventually be found. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I fully admit I can't find additional sources and I agree with Torchiest that the case for keeping is weak. But based on personal knowledge of the field, I'm going with an IAR keep as I feel he's had a deeper impact than many artists with more coverage. Yeah, it's a weak argument, but... Hobit (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know anything about these fantasy card games (other than finding them kind of silly, to be honest) and even I know about Magic: The Gathering and think somebody who was an artist for the original cards axiomatically meets WP:GNG as a notable commercial artist whose work was included in a very lucrative, significant commercial visual art project that has stayed in publication for a long time. How is Poole really distinguishable from Hipgnosis as the artistic collective behind Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy album cover (except that Zeppelin is cooler than Magic: The Gathering, but anyway)? Magic: The Gathering has made a lot of money for its publishers and approaches the outer limits of what I would call a "niche" publication. I'm cognizant of the WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL maxim—"maybe in 70 years we'll appreciate him!"—but Charley Harper and Alvin Lustig immediately come to mind as commercial artists with limited lifetime academic or press coverage who nonetheless made their way into the public visual understanding in subtle but notable respects contemporaneously with their artistic output. I think in this case we should consider that the project to which the artist contributed was so notable that it confers notability in itself, whether or not the individual artist has garnered his/her own academic/press coverage. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Since first publication in 1993, there have been over 14,000 different cards/versions of cards printed for the game, and certainly not every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of artists who've contributed to the game automatically warrant coverage, right? We still need independent coverage. According to List of Magic: The Gathering artists, there were probably about thirty artists who worked on the Limited Edition sets, maybe a bit more. Likewise, not all of them have articles, nor should they. Hipgnosis has some reliable independent sources, and has contributed to many, many independently notable works (list of albums), while Poole has done one semi-notable work (Ancestral Recall). Maybe this disparity in coverage is a byproduct of baby-boomer self-indulgence or something, but that isn't Wikipedia's problem (well, this isn't the place to address that problem, at least). As for your clearly explained personal dislike of Magic, hopefully nobody is factoring in anyone's personal opinion of the game into this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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.