Deletion of Mark Poole

Comment: I believe he passes #4b of  because his reinterpration of Ancestral Recall was the http://www.wizards.com/mpr/archives/mpr-newsletter26.html grand prize of the 2005 Gen Con Vintage Championship. Also, Ancestral Recall is one of the rarest nine original Magic the Gathering cards named the Power Nine. Finally, he has created images http://www.freecomicbookday.com/home/1/1/27/199?articleid=120561 outside of Magic the Gathering, such as World of Warcraft and Sony Online Entertainment, which should be able to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Both  and  require independent sources, which are lacking. All of the current sources are convention listings or company profiles, which are mundane and commercially associated with Poole. I really don't think the Gen Con thing counts as a notable exhibition in this case. His painting was an element of a prize awarded to someone else, he did not win a prize himself, and the only reason he was involved was because he painted the original version of the "Ancestral Recall" card. No disrespect to Poole, but the lack of independent coverage suggests that's mainly about game rules
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST)

Comment: I'' don't know ''anything'' about these fantasy card games (other than finding them kind of silly, to be honest) and ''even I'' know about ''Magic: The Gathering'' and think somebody who was an artist for the original cards axiomatically meets  as a notable commercial artist whose work was included in a very lucrative, significant commercial visual art project that has stayed in publication for a long time.  How is Poole really distinguishable from Hipgnosis as the artistic collective behind Led Zeppelin's ''Houses of the Holy'' album cover (except that Zeppelin is cooler than ''Magic: The Gathering'', but anyway)?  ''Magic: The Gathering'' has made a ''lot'' of money for its publishers and approaches the outer limits of what I would call a "niche" publication. I'm cognizant of the  maxim—"maybe in 70 years we'll appreciate him!"—but Charley Harper and Alvin Lustig immediately come to mind as commercial artists with limited lifetime academic or press coverage who nonetheless made their way into the public visual understanding in subtle but notable respects contemporaneously with their artistic output. I think in this case we should consider that the project to which the artist contributed was so notable that it confers notability in itself, whether or not the individual artist has garnered his/her own academic/press coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL)

Comment: Two references are given, one a dead link the other a link to a page that provides no information about Poole. This article completely fails to satisfy in  and . No independent, reliable sources at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG)