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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pierre Price[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Michael Pierre Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is mainly referenced to primary sources from a group exhibition called "Techspressionism", in which he showed an artwork. An online BEFORE search finds lots of social media, and user-submitted content, and more primary sources. I found one good news source, [1] but that is not enough to put him over the bar, as what is needed are multiple, independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:COI seems evident. Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of sources found. It would be great if those brought up in this discussion could be added to the article. And also, does the article creator, User:Gwanwata have a response here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the article subject meets GNG, and there is no indication the artist meets the notability criteria for visual artists, NARTIST. There is one good source, AZ Sun, but the other one mentioned above by Hobit is a two paragraph modified press release announcing the show, it's a very week source. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netherzone. I am the subject of this article and I understand that I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to work through the process to fix the issues here. I am in uncharted waters with regards to how Wikipedia operates, but I do believe I have substantive sources on both the game design side of my career and also for my art career. What I have done in my 30 years as a game designer is much greater than my art career, but I am hopeful that there is a good case to be made on my behalf for me as an artist and game designer. However, let me say that my sources are strong for the game industry as I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages of past colleagues this week. I would appreciate any guidance you might have in how best to move forward. I have new sources that are not currently being used in my article, but I don't know how to present them and who to present them to, since it looks like I should not make edits here on my own because of the conflict of interest. Thank you for your attention and help. ConradJens (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ConradJens, Thank you for your message and for disclosing that you are the subject of the article, welcome to Wikipedia. You are free to post on this AfD discussion. Just so you know, in compliance with WP:COI you should not edit articles about yourself or close associates or family (other than minor corrections and things like punctuation fixes), and if you create any new articles they should be run through Articles for Creation, rather than created directly in article space.
COI editing is discouraged because introduces systemic bias into the encyclopedia, as well as potenital original research and non-neutral material, and promotional content.
If you have sources to share about your work in the game industry, post those references and links here for assessment. At this time the article only has one decent source, the Arizona Sun article. A general rule of thumb is there should be three solid references that are significant coverage published in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to definitively establish notability.
Good sources would be newspaper articles (not press releases, calendar listings or the like); reviews about your work, games, or publications in reliable sources (not blogs, social media, or primary souces like user-submitted content, interviews, etc.); book chapters or significant coverage in journal articles about you or your work. These should be independent, not written by your or your close associates or colleagues. Wikipedia is interested in what neutral others have said about you and/or your work in reliable sources, not what one says about themself. This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
ps://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention. ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Netherzone,
This question might warrant a talk page discussion on the pertinent policy page. But my understanding about the "law of Three" (that's my term, not Wikipedia's), is that editors in AFD frequently ask for the best three reliable sources (sometimes out of dozens included in the article) as a way of gauging whether or not a subject is notable. It's not a policy guideline or recommendation, it comes from a User essay, User:RoySmith/Three best sources. But it's a valid question to ask to help AFD discussion focus on what's important. Unfortunately, over time, it has been misunderstood by some editors as being a policy rule but it's just a shorthand to help editors come to a decision on whether or not sufficient sourcing exists and to cut through refspam on some articles. But, by contrast, our BLPPROD guide only requires one reliable source to be preesnt on an article to prevent deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz! I guess I'm still a bit confused; I understand it applies to BLPPROD. Could you please, when you have a moment, clarify if that means that GNG and/or NARTIST is met by only one reliable source? (The reason I'm asking here is I'm considering withdrawing the nom if that is the case.) Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does say sources, plural. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure whether to close this as No consensus or relist but reading this discussion over (again), it feels like we are still in the middle of a discussion, not the end. Can we have any more opinions on the source offered? It would be great if this could be in a Deletion sort for Video Games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*'Comment Thank you for the suggestion Liz. I will add it to Games. The subject does not meet notability for artist. Indeed, the subject of the article would prefer it be focused on game design career. If the article isn't edited into notable under those criteria, I would vote for . --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry--- I cant find a category specifically on video games, and I have already voted for delete.[reply]

source analysis[edit]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.phoenixmag.com/2016/12/01/artist-of-the-month-michael-pierre-price/ Yes ? No Local coverage of No Strangers – Annual Members’ Exhibition at Art Intersection in Gilbert, from December 13-January 7. ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/callmeishmael No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No Interview ✘ No
https://azdailysun.com/flaglive/cover_story/math-art-the-enigmatic-creations-of-michael-pierre-price/article_68547405-3390-5da4-8e86-cca1d83de1c2.html Yes Yes This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/d-day-50th-anniversary-in-a-farmhouse-in-france-they/article_12f6cb0f-77e4-5f7a-8dec-d8d2f4230807.html ? ? an article about D Day? ? behind paywall. can't access ? Unknown
https://aaqeastend.com/contents/aaq-portfolio-southampton-arts-center-exhibit-art-techspressionism-digital-beyond/ ? ? AAQ Portfolio Essay Southampton Arts Center no text. Promotion of 2022 show No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/michael/ No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No ✘ No
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/47/6/531/1051174/Nonrelativistic-contribution-to-Mercury-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext Yes Yes 1979 academic paper "Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession" written by the subject of the article - primary source No n ✘ No
https://artintersection.com/event/maps-enigmatic-landscape/ No No Art Intersection is a local gallery No promotional listing for MAPS: Enigmatic Landscape is a solo exhibition of digital prints by Michael Pierre Price shown in the Jewel Gallery at the Coconino Center for the Arts in Flagstaff, AZ. ✘ No
https://thewrong.org/Cyberiana No No Virtual exhibtion - no idea if it is juried No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.mesacc.edu/arts/event/2023-02/future-printmaking-survey-graphic-arts Yes No local coverage No event listing for "The Future of Printmaking: A Survey of the Graphic Arts" at Mesa Community College ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The remainder of the citations are to pages at https://techspressionism.com/ a non-independant soucre and one more - https://www.lafleurartworks.com/event-22-secondary-page-1-2023 an event listing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a biography, this isn't subject to WP:NCORP, so there is no audience requirement. Therefore, I'd consider the first and third sources in this table to be GNG sources. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the Phoenixmag piece is that it is a promotional for the show. The Phoenix Flag piece is a friendly interview. The downtown Devil piece is another puff piece. None of the three article represent significant analysis of the work, just the artist's ideas about his work. None of the articles present a NPV or contribute to notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the source table, @WomenArtistUpdates. This paper:[6] is a a journal article written by the subject of the article. It does not contribute to notability, so that should be changed in the source table.
As to the Phoenix Mag piece, it's a "Preview" for the show which is like a press release. It's promo for his upcoming show. It's not a serious analysis of his work. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elspea756! I would like to add that I am not late to the discussion. I !voted delete on March 11th. I decided to create a source assessment table after this had been relisted again. I don't find the arguments FOR the article to be persuasive. No changes have been made to the article. The article isn't focused on his game development, however it is being asked that the article should exist because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Seems like there's not any support for his art work. The subject himself agrees. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out needed edits is not a reason to delete an article (have edited the sentence that concerned you and other encyclopedic language). Many editors above have reasons to Keep, so this easily fits my essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP: "If a large percentage of experienced commenting editors find value within an article, category, or the encyclopedia's other forms of transmitting information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is even part of the WP:TNT essay: "When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable. If you can't repair it in a timely manner, then this is the simplest argument to refute at WP:DRV; after all, they said it couldn't be fixed and you fixed it." BOZ (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analyses by WAU and others. Not seeing a GNG pass here that doesn't require weakening our tolerance of non-independent material. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2024 (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.
More