Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Hoover (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. –MuZemike 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quinton Hoover
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Supposedly this person is most famous for designing a "hotly desired" MTG card, yet I cannot find any sort of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications detailing that fact. Interestingly, this was nominated for deletion back in 2007 and survived. I believe that our policies regarding WP:BLP articles have greatly improved since then and don't think this meets our current definition of a notable biography in terms of inclusion due to the outright lack of coverage this subject has received (or failed to). JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. Collectible card gaming magazines certainly do not meet WP:RS, and are also not necessarily independent of the subject. Claritas § 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Collectible card gaming magazines are certainly reliable sources as they are the specialist journals which cover the art and other aspects of this major genre. This just seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —J Greb (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Colonel Warden, and wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of sources could be used for all the other Magic artist articles nominated for AFD recently; pity I don't have any myself. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion hasn't changed from last time. Mild keep. DS (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Same with DS and Colonel Warden, my opinion is unchanged from 2007. Keep. Nathan  T 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you? Did you change your name?  I see no "Nathan" commenting during the 2007 discussion and the closing administrator should have a chance to evaluate your rationale if your opinion has not changed.  Colonel Warden isn't doing you any favors either, as the subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party outlets.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 04:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources as per nom and Claritas Codf1977 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think Colonel Warden said it best above. Hooper (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2010 (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.