Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Park (art historian)

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Sudo Ghost 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Park (art historian)

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

Non-notable individual, the subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Sudo Ghost 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per Barney and Johnbod. - Sudo Ghost 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty easy choice - "Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London since 1986" meets criterion 3, as this is the top British academy for archaeologists and related academics, and others are probably met, although the article is not very helpful. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That society's article is a little heavy on the primary sources, are there any third-party sources that show that this is a top British society, one that would make being a fellow notable? - Sudo Ghost 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep he's a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries WP:PROF, and he's in Who's Who (adequate independent 3rd party coverage). Please check Who's Who WP:BEFORE nominating a British professor... Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to check a subscription-only publication, one that shares a name with dozens of non-notable publications, before nominating an article for deletion? Is there any basis that being in such a publication would show any notability whatsoever? - Sudo Ghost 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we want you to use a bit of common sense. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little civility would go a long way. - Sudo Ghost 19:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would a little common sense! Philafrenzy (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would dictate that an article should show the most basic level of notability before an editor tries to spit out dozens of stub articles, because this is not something I'd even consider moving into the mainspace, because common sense would suggest that its notability would be questioned. If civility is too much to ask for, then perhaps some common sense of your own would help you before accusing others of lacking that same thing. - Sudo Ghost 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what linking that version is supposed to prove, other than that the man is a world expert in wall painting, and a professor at one of the most prestigious art institutions in the world. His whole bio is in the reference. You just have to read it to see the notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A professor and an expert? Neither of those show notability, and the article also makes no mention of being a "world expert" (a useless descriptor for showing notability anyways). That was the point of showing that version of the article, because if you're going to place an article in namespace, it needs to be able to stand on its own, and that version didn't even come close to doing so. I don't know if being a fellow of that society meets WP:PROF #3 since the article of that Society lacks any real third-party sources to back up that assertion, but that's why it's at AfD. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but claiming that there is a lack of common sense is both inaccurate and meaningless, unless you believe that accusing others of lacking common sense actually helps anything? - Sudo Ghost 19:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now trying the same thing with Peter Lasko. This really is wasting everyone's time. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "trying the same thing" you mean trying to ensure that these BLP articles belong on Wikipedia then I am indeed guilty, but I fail to see what point that has to this AfD. What "really is wasting everyone's time" is editors who create dozens of subpar stubs about subjects with no indication of how they would be notable. The fellowship aspect of this particular article, which was added after the fact, may show notability, but if an article is notable it would help to indicate that when you create the article. To do otherwise is "wasting everyone's time". - Sudo Ghost 19:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep as above. Take a look at Peter Lasko / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lasko too. Same author, same newly-created status, same obvious notability and sourcing, same editor taking them to AfD with some pretty dubious threats in the edit summaries. I don't know what their problem is with these articles, but it's more trout than policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2013 (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.