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 quality of the sources used to prove notability has come into question, but consensus is strongly in favor of keeping the article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David S. LaForce[edit]

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

Non-notable artist; fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Some conflict of interest concerns. Mikeblas (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as well-known genre artist. I fixed the one Nerd Trek citation, and here's what else I'm finding. Tier 1: [1] [2] Tier 2: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Jclemens (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, and there is one other RS in the article already, the Chattanooga Times as previously provided by Paul Erik. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs to be expanded and improved - not deleted. Diesel is well known as a cartographer who gave various different D&D campaign setting maps a distinctive style, as if they were created by fictional people within that setting. I'll see if I can find some people who can point me at interviews, so that I can add some citations. Big Mac (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no opinion at the moment on the notability of the topic, but I just want to point out that not a single one of those sources brought up by Jclemens can be considered a reliable source. We have, in order, a random guy's personal blog, a "guest announcement" for a very minor con, a random listing of his name and birthdate, a Facebook post, another page that lists nothing but the barest minimum of his personal information, his Tumblr page, an official D&D page that mentions him exactly one time and says nothing except "this is a picture he drew", and a random group of trivia questions in which his name happens to appear once. Whether or not this guy is decided to be notable, these sources should not be used to establish it, and should certainly not be added to the article in any way. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to actually engage in conversation, register. But, to humor you, this is actually a pretty good indicator of pre-Internet notability for a game artist. The facebook post is about him, not by him, and made by the premier convention targeted at gamers who played during the era his art was published. None of this is "challenged or likely to be challenged" so publication in the New York Times or other higher circulation media is not required. And since he already has two independent, reliable sources, none of these actually have to be reliable for the GNG to be met with respect to this artist. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you are humoring an IP doesn't make their point any less valid, and shouldn't be used to imply they are not engaging in conversation. The underlying point is correct: None of those are reliable. Nobody is denying that he exists, and is an artist, so links like MyHeritage are totally pointless. BLPs need reliable, independent sources, and notability needs substantial, independent sources. Not primary source, not social media. If they are not usable in the article, they are not usable to prove notability, and introducing them here is a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple independent sources in the article before considering the validity of anything that Jclemens proffered suggests that is does, in fact, meet WP:GNG - Sangrolu (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't see any reliable independent sources. Independent sources are needed for articles, especially BLPs. I don't know if Nerd Talk is reliable, but regardless, interviews are not independent. A list of works is not substantial enough. I don't have access to the Chattanooga Times Free Press article, but if all it does is support that he worked on early D&D stuff, that's pretty weak. None of the sources presented by Jclemens are usable. Grayfell (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it for a while, I think his body of work implies WP:ARTIST, but independent sources are still lacking. He isn't credited as the primary author/artist for these modules, and being one of an ensemble means that sources need to be held to a higher standard. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have tried to expand the article and provide more depth, give some indication of the wide variety of "old school" TSR publications he helped to create, and broaden the wiki's base of sources, as well as provide a variety of 3rd party reviewers commenting on his artwork and his importance. I hope this addresses the question of notability, and hope that further work by editors will strengthen this article even more. Guinness323 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those sources were passing mentions or totally unusable blogs. We shouldn't use self-published sources for a BLP, and they do nothing to establish notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the 3rd-party commentary you eliminated was from blogs, you have also excised third-party reviewers writing for various industry publications that spoke directly to the quality of his artwork: Jim Bambra, White Dwarf; Elisabeth Barrington, Space Gamer; Keith Baker, Dungeon magazine. These are good secondary sources, I am not sure what the rationale for elimination has been. Even so, I believe notability as TSR's staff cartographer has been established. Guinness323 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Magazine is not independent. This ranking was just as much the company promoting its own products to foster customer engagement as it was commentary on the adventures themselves. The Space Gamer review was of one module, and described his work as "on par with other art from TSR". That seems pretty thin, to me, and it points to a deeper problem. The article for Space Gamer has no reliable independent sources, so we're providing the reader with no way to assess how significant or reliable this mention in a review is. Exactly the same as with White Dwarf (magazine), although the mention is more substantial. Most of these gaming article present knowledge that the subjects are important, but we cannot take that on faith. This enthusiasm gamers have for sharing lore is commendable, but when its handled like this it's alienating to people who aren't already involved in the culture, and frustrating to people who want a straightforward overview of a topic, which is the whole point of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2017 (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.