Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Whittock

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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Whittock[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor 19th century engraver, with no articulation of how the topic meets WP:CREATIVE. Little evidence of third-party sourcing. No biography in www.oxfordartonline.com Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only 32K ghits, 1300 Gbook hits - and such a common name too. Let's keep bashing the newbies. Grove does in fact give him a sentence at "Bird’s-eye view", and he is often mentioned elsewhere as a prolific author of instruction books for drawing, and much else. Now has 4 good sources Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS, more WP:GOOGLEHITS & WP:Assume bad faith. Who needs to even consider notability guidelines and third-party sourcing when you have these? I would point out that "a sentence" is hardly "significant coverage", and that "often mentioned elsewhere" is hardly a full reference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article now has these. What is it with you? If you don't like something, just tag it. You know how to tag - you seem to do little else. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it doesn't. What is it with me? I think policy and guidelines should actually matter. And you know how to remove tags without first correcting the problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an historical artist, the sources provided in the article establish notability and satisfy guidelines. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what it is with you: you seem to think that following your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy and guidelines matters more than writing a verifiable neutral-point-of view encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod and Tyrenius's useful essays WP:HISTORYBIAS and WP:HART. freshacconci talktalk 17:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the most important thing about this topic, if Johnbod is to be believed, is that he once titled a book: "The decorative painters' and glaziers' guide: containing the most approved methods of imitating oak, mahogany, maple, rose, cedar, coral, and every other kind of fancy wood, Verd Antique, Dove, Sienna, Porphry, white-veined and other marbles, in oil or distemper colour; designs for decorating apartments, in accordance with the various styles of architecture; with directions for stencilling, and process for destroying damp in walls; also a complete body of information on the art of staining and painting on glass; plans for the erection of apparatus for annealing it, and the method for joining figures together by leading, with examples from ancient windows." And, as everybody knows, notability is directly proportional to title length, thus clearly establishing his jinormous notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, seems notable enough and valid. From a cursory google search [1] easily notable..Modernist (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, emphatically. I find it bizarre to argue that the length of the book title is somehow an argument against notability (we'd best be deleting a number of Renaissance humanists, then, because the titles of their books are just too damned long). Whittock seems to have been the author of multiple books about art, and as an engraver himself produced a number of documentable works. We have thousands of articles on minor fictional characters in sitcoms, popular novels and the like, presumably for the purpose of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia that covers all aspects of culture, even if I myself find most of this trivial and fan-oriented. In what way does it damage the credibility of WP to record the historical existence of an engraver who also wrote several books? "I'm not interested in this guy" is not an argument for non-notability. "Minor" does not mean "non-notable." Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep clearly notable historical figure. I totally fail to understand the "comment" by Hrafn. It seems the epitome of IDONTCAREABOUTIT. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent sources to establish notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2011 (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.