Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Billington

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. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Billington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST as they have only received low quality coverage in local newspapers. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:- Subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#4. Five of his paintings are represented within the permanent collection of Jülich Museum[1], Germany per this source and World Arts. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:ARTIST#4? The Jülich Museum may or may not count as a notable museum, but it's clearly not "several notable galleries or museums". Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking comments! How on earth will you consider the "Jülich Museum" non-notable simply because it has no article on the English Wikipedia when it does has an article in the dutch Wikipedia (de.m.wikipedia.org/.)? The truth is that there are multiple reliable sources that establish his notability only that they are not in english. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rambulation.com/ is just a random blog and the analysis there is ridiculous. I don't think that world-arts meets RS either - it's clearly autobiographical. His work is in 'a museum' but it's not an art collection that is at all noteworthy. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth will you consider "World Art" unreliable source? Will you also consider the The Art House Gallery, Gallery Liverpool Achieve, Daylight Project unreliable? Perhaps we may need to take the sources to the RS Notice board. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because: World Arts gives you the artist the opportunity to advertise, promote, display and sell your work with no commission fees. The first two aren't unreliable, but they're of little use to demonstrate notability as they are just routine exhibition listings or selling his work. The daylightproject is a site run by Velux as PR. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per these prices on a gallery page. A notable artist would be more expensive. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The impression that I get from the article is that he is an amateur, who manages to produce enough to have occasional exhibitions. However, I may be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now neutral -- I have struck through "delete" above, partly as a result of a representation to me by the subject threatening a libel suit. I nevertheless consider that my "vote" was fair comment, based on what appeared in the article at the time. I have amended Juelich in the article to Jülich, the usual spelling where diacriticals can be used. While Jülich has an article, it museum does not; at least not in the English WP. I do not know whether it does in the German WP; it may do. That fact that Billington has got several paintings into a foreign gallery might point to his notability. I may have been wrong in suggesting that he was another of the host of amateurs, who try to gain fame by having a WP-article, articles that are rightly deleted. If the achievements listed in the article for a man now aged about 60 had been spread over a career of (say) 40 years, I would certainly question his notability. At present the article says nothing about what he did up to 2008. I would certainly suggest that the article still needs improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. I am therefore changing my position to neutral. Billington this self-authored link says that he is a full time artist, so that my statement that he is an amateur must be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just another run-of-the-mill painter who tries to promote his work here. The four or five paintings that are in the [Jülich Museum were commissioned for an exhibition of 19th-century landscape paintings to which Billington's modern "copies" (in fact ridicilous simplifications, look at "Lempertz" here) were added for contrast. No other museum on earth apparently has acquired any such artworks in the meanwhile, and thus he fails WP:ARTIST #4d. Kraxler (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2015 (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.