Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering artists
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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
- List of Magic: The Gathering artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (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 ]
- 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.
- 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 ]
- 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]
- Primary sources can be reliable to
- Delete - a clear cut case of ]
- Comment - note that the nominator has also put the following Magic artist articles up for AFD as well: 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 ]
- 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 anduserfyingthe 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 onJoin WikiProject Japan! 04:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Add Join WikiProject Japan! 02:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add
- 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. ···Join WikiProject Japan! 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, somehow I ended up here instead of there when I followed links about this. Zannen. ···
- 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]
- Keep A list of artists isn't a directory, and this reasonably meets ]
- Keep as the list meets Join WikiProject Japan! 02:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 ]
- 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.