Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Pui-Mun Law

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. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Pui-Mun Law

Stephanie Pui-Mun Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deletion nomination Article about a fantasy roleplaying board/cardgame illustrator which has no claim of encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Yes, 105,000 ghits, but I've waded through like 15 pages of the search results, and can't find any authoritative sources showing encyclopedic notability. The hits are generally, fantasy art-related blogs and amateurish websites. I mean good grief, there are a lot of fantasy art fansites out there. Bwithh 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete she may be a real artist, but notability is questionable. Article seems to have been created for no reason other than an elaborate attempt to bring false sense of validity to the bogus Tuba (mythology) article. Wavy G 05:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Somitho 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - no notabliity, just blogospheres. SkierRMH,08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1.) This discussion seems to imply fantasy art and illustration in general has no claim of encyclopedic notability; deleting this article sets a precedent and will show personal bias unless ALL fantasy artists of similar rank are deleted from Wikipedia, including Brom, Todd Lockwood, Julie Bell, Amy Brown and countless others.

2.) Pui-Mun Law's work DOES have wide notability amongst fans, professionals and her peers in the field, where she is regarded as one of its premiere watercolorists, hence her resume reading like a who's who of companies who use fantasy art. She is as well known as any of the aforementioned artists, so again, deletion should include all or none of them. 3.) Does NOT fail WP:BIO. The 2nd and 9th bullet points apply. Verifiable references can be found and deletion is hasty and unnecessary. 4.) User Wavy G's (who has been banned) accusation is bizarre, nonsensical and irrelevant, having nothing to do with why an article on her (or any fantasy artist) was created and therefore should not be taken into account. Inkgod 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Response Okay, I just said her notablility was "questionable" (as others have pointed out, there is no assertion of notablility in the article) and the article was created by User:PatrickSW, a main contributor of a recently-deleted hoax article (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuba (mythology)) about a made-up mythological creature, citing Ms. Pui-Mun Law's painting (called "Snail Siesta") as a painting of said creature--THEN creating this article. I simply said it was created out of an attempt to bring some sort of credibility to that article (and it worked, by the way). She may be notable in her own right, but, as others seem to believe, she is not. Take of that what you will. Wavy G 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response The Tuba myth article, its author and that controversy are irrelevant to the article on Stephanie Pui-Mun Law (regardless if the original author is the same). If articles were simply deleted whenever tainted by trolls there wouldn't be much left on Wikipedia to look at. Also, most people familiar with the fantasy genre would not question her notability; so if it's the notability of the fantasy art world itself that's in question, then there are many more articles than this that must be debated for deletion as well. Inkgod 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Week Keep See Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability for the concern about other articles. Her article stands on their own merits. That said, she gets a passing mention amounting to a page of text in a 2004 graduate thesis for a Home Economics (?!?!) degree, available from google scholar's cache here [1], and a page of text and four pages of example illustrations in a 112 page book from 2003 entitled The Art of Faery, available to those with google book accounts here [2]. The article also cites a profile at the CrescentBlues website. That website's "about us" page shwos that they pay for work, but doesn't say that reviews will be rejected for errors, and some other things on the site indicate that the editors have other day jobs. All of this isn't clear cut notability, but is enough reason for me to believe that she probably is notable to WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Edit I've edited the article to now include a largely comprehensive (though still incomplete) list of accomplishments she's known for in the fantasy publishing industry with verifiable references. She's very prolific and her notability is without question. Inkgod 07:42, 22 December 2006 (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.