Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doman Turner

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Doman Turner[edit]

British painter. I A7 deleted this, but it was restored by another admin. On my talk page he stated his reasoning as being that Turner was the member of a notable art group, and associated with another notable artist. While this *might* be enough to invalidate the A7 deletion, I do not agree that it is enough to rise to the level of notability overall. Notability is not transferred. Memberships in notable organizations and associations with other notable figures does not make one notable. The article's subject needs to be shown to be notable himself, not for his associations, and this person does not show that. TexasAndroid (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the subject of at least one book I can find (here's the amazon page). Google books shows some more books that at least mention him. Given the nature of pre-20th century subjects, this indicates notability. I think Tyrenius' essay on historical systemic bias applies here. In a nutshell, we need to use slightly different standards of notability for historical artists, which with I'm inclined to agree. freshacconci talktalk 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fresh, plus he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Art, unlike vast numbers of artists with articles here. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple references. Another example of what WP:BEFORE should be required -- why would anyone actually want to send a nom here that can be quickly shown to be misguided? DGG (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - As the original author of the stub and undeleting admin mentioned above I'll refrain from casting a vote. I created the article primarily to help disambig a mess of John D Turner links - it's a popular name, apparently. I've no special knowledge of the stub's subject - I'm appallingly ignorant on the subject of 20th century artists - but even I had heard of the Camden Town Group of which he was a member so I guessed he was notable. All I ask is that if it's removed, please fix all the links to it. Ta - TB (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. As he was a member, albeit a minor one, of the exclusive 16-man Camden Town Group, he has an automatic historical place, as evidenced by his inclusion in books on the group, e.g. Wendy Baron's Perfect Moderns, and reviews such as The Times articles on the group in 1912, 1939, 1959 and 1962. I suggest a withdrawal of the nom and speedy keep. Ty 09:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and we have always accepted an entry in the DNB as proof of notability, as a totally reliable highly selective secondary/tertiary source. We are a superset of other encyclopedias. DGG (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article needs expansion but should remain...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2009 (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.