Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Thomas Clint

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Thomas Clint[edit]

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

Not a notable person, plus likely a case of WP:AUTO. bender235 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much available in English on him, but seems notable - his work has been exhibited, there was a bit in Reader's Digest India, and they were holding a street festival in his home town to raise money to digitize his work. Brianyoumans (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How come this is WP:AUTO? Clint died in 1983. Plus there are enough neutral references provided to prove notability. Vipin Hari || talk 17:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's rather amazing that someone who is twenty years dead could write a Wikipedia article on themselves, especially when Wikipedia was created more than ten years after their death. But, hey, if anyone can do it, a child prodigy can, I suppose. Silver seren^C 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: WP:AUTO "applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." So it does not have to be the subject of an article writing about himself. --bender235 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, lighten up. :P Silver seren^C 20:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is available on this boy is scarce. This article needs improvement. Improve it if you can. How can you say he is not famous enough for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavkvp (talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in The Hindu, "the second-largest circulated daily English newspaper in India" (according to wikipedia). Ty 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty. I have added more sources. continuing coverage two decades after subject's death and continuous exhibition of his works, proves he is notable.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found. When nom'ing as "non notable" is helpful to note what was done to determine if sources existed, especially when dealing with a subject that may have non-english sources.--Milowent (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources...Modernist (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2010 (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.