Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hodgson Liddell

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. (without prejudice, if further sources are found). Mango juice^talk 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hodgson Liddell

Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability in the article and no sources. Sparse GHits with no distinctions, awards, or honors. Clarityfiend 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Clarityfiend; also unsourced. --ROASTYTOAST 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JJL 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Member of Royal Society of British Artists, which seems important--Whistler was a member, and certainly is a assertion of notability. We need some more time on this one.DGG 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix I have no problem with obsure articles on obscure artists from way back in the misty days of yore when some talent (rather than grants for "phart" hacks) was actually necessary to sell one's work. The mere fact that you can still buy this man's book 98 years after its first publication ought to account for SOME notability.--Mike18xx 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Filmaker 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak ~~delete~~ keep - I added one ref. There is very little on him outside of a couple ghits, some of which seem to be genealogy-related. I can't tell if it could ever pass WP:BIO, especially as I don't expect much of substance about him has been published in reliable independent secondary sources. I could be wrong though. However, he's a deceased painter, his stuff being for sale sort of passes a test-of-time test for me personally, and I think it's perhaps part of Wikipedia's mandate to have at least a little information on very obscure artists of the past. I've looked up very minor painters myself, and was disappointed to not find anything on them here. I admit my argument is weak, but I feel better advocating a keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 19 June 2007 (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.