Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hampson (artist)

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. There are no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hampson (artist)[edit]

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

Remarkable lack of secondary sources. User:Topcipher PRODded this last year and they had a point: the tone is promotional, the content mostly trite, and the references not impressive. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is reliably cited to multiple independent sources: I have added some more, with reviews of the mosaics. I was unable to discover a promotional tone in the article. Hampson belongs to a tradition of artists with a unique vision. He never hit the big time but has certainly achieved a degree of recognition for his work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't dispute a "degree of recognition"--but it barely registers on any scale. He's little more than a roadside attraction who gets, in all, a couple of sentences in books on roadside attractions. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes but that has been happening over and over again since 1923. Even if you delete the article, people will keep writing about it. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reliable secondary sources. Rodin no….Notable yes. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have naught but the greatest respect for my Dixie-dwelling colleague Herr Dokter Drmies, but he is wrong about this one. The tone may be promotional, the content may be trite, and the references may not be impressive, but not one of these astute observations constitutes a reason for deletion. The only reason for deletion is non-notability, and this fellow, Mr. Hampson, clearly satisfies the GNG. Aside from the sources in the article which, unimpressive as they may be, there's e.g. this item as well as many guidebooks discussing the guy's work. The NEH is preserving it and we should do no less. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk sources in the current version: 1. is the online magazine of a local conservation center. 2. is a write-up on the website of a small, local museum--apparently the only one who was interested in his work. 3. is the best in the bunch: a short note in a Lonely Planet guide--at least that one was printed. 4. is a single sentence on an art advocacy organization's website. 5. is a page on the Roadside America website--an outfit whose editorial control is vague, to say the least, but it's clear what they list: minor roadside attractions. 6. is a dude's website and God only knows what this link is supposed to verify. 7. is a WordPress blog whose author is possibly reliable, but the publication itself is not, and the two paragraphs are hardly in-depth. 8. is a single paragraph on the NEH website. 9. is a chatty travel blog on the Atlas Obscura website (mostly user-generated content), with three sentences on our subject. 10. is a grant request for the NEH (I have no idea why someone would think that a reliable source for an encyclopedia.
In short, while I am sympathetic to the "keep" arguments, we have at best one single printed source that can be called secondary and reliable (and sure, the IP's Google snippet which suggests there are at least two more sentences about this guy in print), and the best of the rest are varying degrees of website. BTW "references may not be impressive" is actually a reason for deletion: "doesn't pass GNG" for lack of coverage in reliable sources, let alone any kind of in-depth coverage of the subject, which is exactly why I nominated this. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadside America website is however associated with Kirby and the book series, as its 'About' web page confirms, so the wikilink was correct, not "confusing". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wide selection of tourist-oriented sources confirm GNG. Folk art like this can be just as notable as more traditional forms, as demonstrated by the sources. At one point it may have been a family-notability preservation project (e.g. the museum donation), but it has been noticed by enough people and written about enough times that it is part of the public vernacular-- even if that fact bugs some people. Lots of artists (think van Gogh) do not achieve any kind of notability until after death.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry--which "wide selection"? Written about where? Reliable sources please. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ones in the article. I know we will disagree on that though. I see a lot of !voters arguing keep here for the same reason. I can see the reason for questioning the notability: the kids gave the bug paintings to a museum and they eventually gained some notoriety. It's to some degree invented or marketed. However it seems clear from the coverage that they are in the museum, people write about it enough in non-trivial sources that it has gained an independent amount of notoriety. I know you will reply that the sources are crap.. so I acknowledge your reply in advance. Oh and by the way, here is another source form Frommers, and one from the National Endowment for the Humanities (book, not web site), and sentence mention in that there New York Times. As a former professor once said to me, "it's hard as hell to get into the public vernacular, but once you're in, it's twice as hard to get out." 104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ARTIST #4 I think covers him. His work is a permanent collection in a museum. The coverage on by Roadside America I think counts towards his notability since as the Doug Kirby article's referenced information reads: "Roadside America series of travel books.[1][2] The series has received favorable reviews from The Village Voice and Car and Driver, and was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show." So those are notable whether the information is published in a printed book or on the official website. Got coverage in The Newark Evening News of February 17, 1923. So WP:GNG is met. Dream Focus 18:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't even claim to be written by Doug Kirby. And Artist #4? I suppose you're pointing at d., "the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", which is obviously not met (the one museum is barely notable). a. through c. also aren't met, quite obviously--surely it is clear that there is a complete lack of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reference is about the series, it doesn't matter which writer did it. The series should have its own article, but it doesn't, just one of the writers. The GNG is met, that's all that matters. Dream Focus 22:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a couple unreliable sources and the article could use cleanup, but GNG ~~and CREATIVE are~~ is fulfilled here. (edit) I also added two sources. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:10, 2 April 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.