Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Richardson

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 of the nomination was KEEP — Gareth Hughes 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard Richardson

Artist does not appear to be notable; Google turns up fewer than 10 unique hits on "'gerard richardson' naval artist" and article author has history of vanity entries/edits. HumbleGod 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All right now. What do "Whos Who In American Art", The Smithsonian Library" and these notable collections have in common? The Kennedy Presidential Library, Lyndon Johnson Ranch, Hearst Corporation, US Naval Museum, etc. They believe that Gerard Richardson is a quite notable artist. If this artist can appear in Whos Who in American Art and can not appear in Wikipedia, then you might reconsider your editorial opinions on artists.

In addition, I resent the arrogant and insulting statement by HumbleGod, whatever juvenile handle that might be, from saying that I have a history of vanity articles. I proposed the artist James Williams into Wikipedia because he is a superb and recognized contemporary artist. That is why he was commissioned to illustrate a book that I wrote. In addition, it is duly noted that someone has eliminated the awards from the original James Williams aricle that I had written about him. How interesting. Hard to document, when the documentation is deleted...

Furthermore, the fact that the article that I wrote on a basketball team that achieved a state and national win record that has survived for fifty years is not vanity, it is a sports record! The reason that I was a member of that remarkable team does not make it less true. Leave out my name if it will make you feel less strident in your "editing"

It would seem to me that editing should be concerned as to whether the subject matter of the article is worthy, accurate and educational, rather than the editor trying to insult a sincere contributor -Allen Autry

• Keep per WP:BIO: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" (emphasis added). The Morning Mist painting meets the historical record criteria, so I'm going to say the artist is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. First, addressing the nominator's comments about vanity edits: one of the original editor's contributions was an article he had written himself, and another was on an artist he had commissioned for works he was writing. Both of those create the appearance of vanity because of the editor's personal stake in the work. That's why the key with that article is showing other people's citations/opinions that the artist is worthy of inclusion. That's done in this article.

I think we probably all need to step back and assume good faith in all of the participants here. Yes, some of Mr. Autry's contributions have not met notability guidelines for subjects, or at least have not backed up the articles with verifiable evidence to support the claim. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and brand all his contributions bad without considering them each on their respective merits. Likewise, remember that an article is only as good as the text created in it. If there's not enough content in the article to support the subject's importance, then normal procedure to question this is to propose deletion...but do remember that we're discussing the merits of the article and not any editor who participates in this process. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuice^talk 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep gets mentioned in books Davenport's Art Reference: The Gold Edition and Dunbier, Lonnie Pierson The Artists Bluebook [1] Dlyons493 Talk 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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.