Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lawrence Cadman
Appearance
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Many artists - notable and non-notable have been members of the Royal Institute of WaterColour Painters, that doesn't mean they are notable. Sadly, many of us were unable to find proper sourcing, online and offline, about Cadman. Perhaps when further writing is done about his work, we can include him. SarahStierch (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Lawrence Cadman (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)
Poorly cited with references that don't support the assertion of notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For a painter born in the 1920's I'd expect at least a book hit or two. There's nothing there, so fails WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. At first I thought it may have been a hoax, but it's not. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Normal profile of exhibitions, society membership, etc. of an exhibiting artist. Worthy but falls short of WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have done my best to improve the links and provide more evidence. This is a tragic downside of Wikipedia. Michael Lawrence Cadman died an old man, detesting the modern world as do many of his generation and thus he is not openly promoted on the web, and equally he is not quite historic enough to grab the attention of historians. And yet he was a noteworthy artist. Herewith a quote from Charles Bone, former President of the Royal Institute of Painters in Watercolours (RIPW) regarding his peers: Michael's professor was Gilbert Spencer, brother of Stanley Spencer. His fellow students at this time included Frederick Brill, later to become Principal of Chelsea School of Art and the late Lesley Worth, former President of the Royal Watercolour Society. But this quote,, along with many other anecdotes exists only on our own website and thus would not qualify. It is a tragedy to reject entries such as this in favour of X-Factor winners simply because they have more online references, as belongs to their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donna K France (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. He fails the necessary notability guidelines for inclusion. — ṞṈ™ 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate !vote: Donna K France (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Once last attempt to keep please. With his permission, I have added a personal quote from Charles Bone regarding MLC's peers (inkeeping with WP:ARTIST guidelines, and with references to Charles' credentials. MLC was an Associate Member of the Royal Institute of WaterColour Painters - and this is referenced by their obituary to him in their newsletter. I think it would be a great shame for this man to be forgotten simply because his peers are not part of the online generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donna K France (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 December 2012 (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.