Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tolkien
From 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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tim Tolkien
- Not notable under WP:BIO. karmafist 21:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- WP:BIO allows for sculptors [...] whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field and Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Andy Mabbett 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Right now, the current version doesn't make it clear how he's exceptional or likely to become a significant part of sculpting history. As for the Birmingham Post article there, it's about the contreversy regarding the statue's location, not Tolkien. karmafist 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- WP:BIO allows for sculptors [...] whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field and Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Andy Mabbett 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Several publicly-erected works, including this major piece. This newly-created stub was listed four minutes after its creation, while I was still working in it! The article was already a red-link on Castle Bromwich and Castle Vale. Andy Mabbett 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I would have placed {{db-bio}} on it in the state it was in. You might consider doing your edits in a temporary user space page, and once they've reached a level where they should be safe from deletion, copy them into their destination article. —Locke Cole 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I could do, but recent experience shows that there are some editiors who will take draft material, including editoral notes and reminders, from another users' talk space and paste it, unedited, into the article for which it is intended. Andy Mabbett 20:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I would have placed {{db-bio}} on it in the state it was in. You might consider doing your edits in a temporary user space page, and once they've reached a level where they should be safe from deletion, copy them into their destination article. —Locke Cole 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as it appears to pass WP:BIO. Saberwyn 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Andy Mabbett -Meegs 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Article at this name is an appropriate place to discuss both creator and creator's works. Jkelly 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --CBD ✉ 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --TalkManHe is now famous, at least three exceptional works, has red links in the past. Proposed work is controversial, so discussion needs somewhere to take place.
- Keep - more detail to come Tearlach 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Andy Mabbett. Valiantis 14:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's expanded a lot since the initial AfD tag was put on it. —Locke Cole 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed; but, given that the newly-created stub was listed four minutes after its creation, while I was still working in it, that's hardly surprising. Andy Mabbett 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. the wub "?!" 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 December 2005 (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.
