Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen

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 no consensus. Dennis - 2¢ 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen[edit]

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

This artist does not appear to have been notable. In a search I found only a few catalog listings, items for sale. I found nothing at Google Books or Google Scholar about him or his significance as an artist. MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PROD was removed by the article's author with the following rationale: "I disagree with the philosophy that an artist must reach a certain level of 'notability' in order to warrant a Wikipedia article. Allen has had his works sold by Christie's, which I think should support his inclusion. If a certain level of notability is necessary for an artist to be included, I think the way that notability is measured should be spelled out in detail and not left to individual judgment." --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are looking for WP:ARTIST and can refer the creator there... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, appears you already have!... Delete as NN artist.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a mention of him at the Smithsonian Archives (looks like just his name in photo of some other artists, so not much info. Addt'l info.

The AskArt page cites this book as a reference. There might be more in there to assert notability. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, a google search through that book (available here) turns up nothing. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practically all the information is taken in its entirety from the first reference, and, quotes or no quotes, might possibly be considered a WP:COPYVIO. In any case, none of it shows any notability anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep art history. and he shows up in the selective Art Info listings. plus: one of his paintings sold for close to $100k at christie's auction house. he's a third- or forth-tier american impressionist, but still worthy of encyclopedia inclusion. the article needs more detail and more references, but it still needs to be retained. it is hard to find web-verifiable RS for this era since much of the print-based news hasn't yet been digitized except for the most famous artists.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your efforts to expand the article as expressed on the talk page. I request that when seven days are up this nomination be relisted to give you more time. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source from the Chicago Tribune in 1892 via newspapers.com. Apparently, he was just discovered to be related to the Vanderbilts and therefore became part of the "high society" at the time and their is a claim to him being a known artist of the time. I think the article establishes his notability at that time. Good luck expanding it! I am One of Many (talk) 23:46, 9 October 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 October 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close now as keep and/or close now as no consensus THe newspaper article describes him as a notable artist of the time. Even though it is from the society section of the paper, it along with other stuff mentioned above warrants a keep. In any case, keeping the article up on AfD for prolonged period is demoralizing to the editors working on the page. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:48, 18 October 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.