Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wightman (painter)

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. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Wightman (painter)[edit]

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

Another artist with no works in major museum collections, and just one quote from the blog posting of a exhibition catalog. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 'blog posting' is simply a more accessible version of the foreword for the published catalogue on the artist's work (ISBN 978-1-907849-08-4). However, this reference has now been changed to show the publication rather than the blog about the publication. A quotation from 2003 has also been added along with two newspaper articles as sources. Two public collections have also been added with a source. References and sources support the claim for notability within the UK.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One little change in one source doesn't prove notability. We'd need more than that. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG with a book & several newspaper mentions. The Steve 08:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thesteve. buff bills 7701 12:16, 19 January 2014 (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.