Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Francis Burton

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Burton[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not clear that this artist meets the criteria at WP:NARTIST or WP:SIGCOV 4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he is in one collection, which is a significant thing. My hunch is that he is probably notable; we have just not yet found the sources to show he is. Yesterday I was about to AfD a very similar article on a marine painter, seeing it in this state. By the time I had investigated him, he turned out to be very notable. This article, on William Francis Burton, strikes me as a situation where two decent sources will put it over the top. --- Possibly ☎ 03:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How times (and tastes) have changed. In 1969, the Observer reported that he was Britain's most popular painter, yielding the top spot in a poll by the Fine Art Trade Guild to "a Barcelona painter called Palmero". That must have been Alfredo Palmero de Gregorio, for whom there is a museum, but no Wikipedia article. Let's not forget that notability is not temporary. If he was notable in 1969, we can have an article about him. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in looking at the sources added by Possibly, I am persuaded that this is a weak keep. The sourcing is still a bit thin for my liking, but I do agree with Vexations that notability is not temporary. As such, I am withdrawing the nom.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2021 (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.