Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Vohwinkel

{{Delrevafd|date=2010 July 23}}

: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. The "keep" comments here were not strong arguments. One was basically "I vote keep", along with ad hominem comments about the nominator. Another was that the editor was "confident" more sources existed, though he/she didn't actually bring any. A third was essentially "sufficient information" and "seems reasonable", neither of which are policy or guideline based rationales. The only strong "keep" comment was basically that one Reliable Source existed, combined with sufficient information about the individual and a rational argument regarding why the person should be considered notable despite not matching the qualifications outlined in the guidelines. On the other hand, the "delete" comments were all soundly grounded in policy and guideline - insufficient coverage in reliable third party publications to demonstrate notability. Jayjg (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

=[[Franz Vohwinkel]]=

:{{la|Franz Vohwinkel}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Vohwinkel}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Franz Vohwinkel}})

Delete, unable to locate evidence of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications which would demonstrate notability. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- I also cannot find any substantial, independent coverage of this person. Reyk YO! 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just another in a string of IDONTLIKEIT nominations by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please keep your comments focused on the subject of the article. Please note that this is not a vote, and if the best you can do is say "same user doesn't like this" then your comments are likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Furthermore, your implied accusation is false, I am more ambivalent or neutral than anything about the subject matter. The problem lies with a huge walled garden of unsourced and non-notable WP:BLP articles plaguing Wikipedia. And if you're saying I don't like that, then you would be right. I don't. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You can comment on everyone who votes keep trying to make the closing admin discount those votes all you want. I vote keep and it counts as a vote. This article subject is fine and in line with BLP. Hooper (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow. Just... wow. This is not a vote. Newsflash! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I will not discuss the matter with you further, as your recent string of AfDs makes it impossible for me to assume good faith, something that I hate to admit but is the truth. Good day. Hooper (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The bottom line here is that this is not a vote and this article has no sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. What you assume or do not assume is irrelevant to that end. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Without sounding too impolite here, your confidence is not enough. If no sources exist, neither should the article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sourcing is weak, though I've added one independent RS (an interview). Per WP:N there is a reasonable case for deletion as there is only one solid independent RS (there are other RSes, just not independent including his own bio). However, this is one of those (fairly rare) times I find WP:IAR to be important in this context. A review of a bunch of sources ([http://boardgameblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/tikal-review.html], [http://www.io.com/~beckerdo/games/reviews/RaReview.html], [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14606.phtml], [http://www.naturelich.com/games/archives/reviews/], [http://35privatesanctuary.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=27] to name a very few) make it plain he's very well known in the field. The breadth and depth of his work is [http://www.geekdo.com/geeklist/635/artist-franz-vohwinkel/page/1 huge] (I must own at least 50 different pieces by him between D&D, boardgames, and MtG). He's the main artist/art designer for 5 or 6 (I lost count) of the top 100 board games including the #1 game. Also, given that Scrye and other magazines tend to cover artists, I strongly suspect there is more RS coverage of him. We have the RS and his own bio, so we have plenty to write. So keep. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, [http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgameartist/11883/franz-vohwinkel] shows him having art credits for more than 310 games. This doesn't include his work for D&D and counts his MtG work as a single thing. I know all about WP:BIGNUMBER, but that's still darn remarkable and might be unique to him. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 08:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep sufficient information. Notability is a guideline intended to be interpreted flexibly, and does not require anything specific it is seems reasonable, as it does here. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Dewritech (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)