Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Burton Drake

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Burton Drake[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)

I couldn't find any evidence of notability, either as a minister or as an artist. Moreover, it seems as if there is uncertainty whether the painter and the minister even are the same person (see talk page). Article is unsourced since 2006, and I couldn't find any good source online either (the Europeana site copies our article without attribution, as far as I could see, and otherwise all we have are short listings at minor auctions for the painter, and nothing at all for the minister). Whether the information about the minister is some hoax or some personal information which is unverifiable is not clear, but it doesn't belong on enwiki. Fram (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until they were removed in this edit, the article had three sources: 1) Phone interview with grandson, Professor Richard Drake, on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006. 2) Drake family tree and 14 pages of genealogical information provided by Grinnell College Libraries, Special Collections and Archives 3) Phone interview with granddaughter, Jane Drake Erickson, May 28, 2008. None of those establish notability for the subject. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TNT as likely two different people combined as one, and no claims of significance for either, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a memorial page. I could not find any mentions of him other than a painting in the Ulster city hall, in GBooks. No SIGCOV, no GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The clergyman has a biography in "Who's Who in Chicago, 1931". The artist has one in the Biographical Dictionary of Kansas Artists [1]. (Hint: next time search for "Drake George Burton"). James500 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. However, a short entry in an exhaustive, not a selective, list (like this biographical dictionary of Kansas artists) doesn't give someone notability. Furthermore, there is a fair chance of circular referencing: our article is from 2006, the askart entry this dictionary bases itself on from 2007. I have no access to "who's who in chicago 1931". Fram (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This person satisfies GNG. A biographical dictionary is amongst the best possible evidence of notability, especially when it comes from a university like the University of Kansas. The entry is not particularly short. A circular referencing argument is not really applicable to a university source who have to be presumed to know what they are doing, especially when there are contemporary sources this could have been checked against. Further, the Biographical Dictionary of Kansas Artists was published in 2006, and it has been online since 11 August 2006, some time before our articles were created on 28 October 2006 and 10 December 2008. "Exhaustive" is not a valid argument as GNG contains no such exception, and I don't see how any publication could be exhaustive of all artists, since the historical record is not that good. That you lack access to a source is irrelevant, as that does not affect its verifiability. Who's Who in Chicago 1931 is available from at least 63 libraries: [2]. If editors can't read it online, they can take themselves to one of those libraries. James500 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure of the entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Kansas Artists, especially if it is entirely based on an askart lemma. It only gives: this:
      "Drake, George Burton. b. Eagle, NY, Aug. 3, 1870; d. McPherson, 1942. Painter, spec. landscapes. Minister. Studied at Pike Academy and Ridgeville (IN) College. Lived in Vermont, New York, Kansas, and Illinois working as a church Minister. AskArt, www.askart.com, accessed Oct. 15, 2007."
      The Askart entry is at http://www.askart.com/artist_bio/George_Burton_Drake/11010354/George_Burton_Drake.aspx and looks remarkably like an early version of our article. It seems very likely that this is a circular reference. --Vexations (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Most of the article is about his career as a minister, which seems run of the mill. The question is thus how significant he was as an artist. I have no answer to that, except that a reference based on an old WP article is not a WP:RS.
Keep. As per James500. Notability isn't transient. Notable in 1931 is notable today. Curiocurio (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More commentary on whether there are two separate people here, and is the ref being mentioned actually circular referencing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable source to prove his credibility as an artisian and minister as no valid data is available after 2006 .Vinodbasker (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2018 (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.