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. Wizardman 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Hoover[edit]

Quinton Hoover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Recreated speedy; less obvious now, but I still don't beleive the notability concerns have been addressed. Additionally, the article has no independent sources. — Coren ^(talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He gets instant name recognition from me. He was one of the original artists for Magic the Gathering and as he produced art for core cards like Mountain, his work will be familiar to millions. It would be easy to cite more references from gaming magazines like Scrye. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless WP:NOTE is shown with WP:RS. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana_(recall) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. PKT (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hoover is notable. However, the article should be improved. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails the WP:BIO guideline and the WP:LIVING official policy as there are no reliable third party sources. That he is a graphic artist who worked on a popular project is not in dispute. However, the mentions he gets are on blogs rather than reliable sources. Our purpose here is to record the sum of human knowledge, not to be the judge of it. Our measurement for notability is when a reliable independent peer reviewed source has made a judgement. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added some citations to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep; there seems to be sufficient cites to keep.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a referenced article that asserts notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the problem is that there is exactly one independent source— the interview. Besides that, two self-published sources, one passing mention as being present at an event, and a database listing. How does that meet WP:BIO? — Coren ^(talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Avruchtalk 03:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is certainly notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild keep. DS (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (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.