Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett

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 keep. ~ c. tales ^*talk* 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connor Barrett

Article fails to establish notability. Was speedied, then undeleted out of process. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. (Full disclosure: I originally speedied it per CSD:A7, and I think such speedying was justified.) Stifle (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Keep since expansion, notability was asserted and article expanded. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment: existence confirmed, minor artist, listed on askart.com [1]. I am not familiar with our notability standards for sculptors, but it would seem jarring to delete this just because we are more used to Trekkies, Tolkienists and Pokemonists than to art buffs. dab (ᛏ) 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he illustrated a popular Bennett Cerf book, as confirmed by Amazon. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - seems adequately notable and verified not to breach WP:Bio--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Author of several books many years ago is enough for me. Shanes 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful article on a minor artist, but nevertheless one who had a part to play in culture. I suggest more caution is exercised with regard to the arts, as verification of notability is often less forthcoming than with those of equivalent stature within other fields, e.g. sport and music. Tyrenius 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as the primary author of the piece my vote is probably not surprising but for me to discover that any athlete who has played professional sports, any song recorded by the Beatles,and a host of lesser acts for that matter, and any character - and probably any actor from any TV show is okay here but an admitedly minor artist is not is mildly disturbing, since much of my wikipedia work involves minor sculptors who did great work and who should not (opinion) be forgotten. Carptrash 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Oh yes, I have a lot of pictures of Barrett's work, along with his poetry that I was on my way to add to the article when it showed up missing, but am not going to post it until this tempest is resolved.

• Keep. If Conor Barrett had been a drummer for a grunge band in Walla Walla in the 90s, deletion would not have come up, would it? --Wetman 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment I bet you it would, and it would get deleted pretty quickly too! Ohconfucius 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You both show a shocking lack of knowledge of Walla Walla 90s grunge culture. Tyrenius 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, well-referenced article, solid claims to notability. Please do not speedy delete articles like this in the future. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sculptors generally get less press than other artists, and he seems notable enough to me from the references. His papers in the Smithsonian makes him plenty notable. Ohconfucius 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Rap on knuckles to admins involved. Catchpole 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a wider issue than just admins involved, as contemporary values mean in a play-off between minor rock stars or minor cartoon characters and minor artists, the latter can't compete to the same PR standards, although they hold an equivalent place of repute in their own field. The new edition of the reference work Artists in Britain since 1945 will be published in the Autumn with 14,500 entries, so if wikipedia wishes to compete with that, there's going to have to be a bit of a cultural rethink on what makes artists worthy of inclusion. Let's not give admins a hard time over one decision, when they've doubtless done hundreds of unnoticed, unthanked, worthwhile tasks. Tyrenius 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree, this was a minor speedy-deletion accident. I am more uneasy about the fuss raised at its correction. Imho, this would have been a simple case of 'sorry, my mistake, thanks for fixing'. If we can get pages of debate over a case like this, it is no wonder issues that are genuinely controversial are bogged down as they are. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's the wonderful world of wiki! It gets there in the end, but it just takes ten times the amount of effort it should. Ah well, it's a glorious venture. Tyrenius 08:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: With due respect, the version of the article that was speedied was significantly different from what it's like now. Can you specify which of the speedy keep criteria it meets? Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above reasonings. ShaunES 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment: Can you specify which of the speedy keep criteria it meets? Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep recognised twice by the Audubon Society, numerous other marginal claims to notability, the sum total is certainly sufficient for my standards. Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason to delete. TacoDeposit 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. When a deleted article is made again or undeleted, rather than redoubling our deletion efforts, we should be open to the possibility that maybe it shouldn't be deleted after all. Friday (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article establishes notability pretty clearly. Lack of notability is not a speedy deletion business. Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't appear to be a speedy candidate. This article is an excellent example of the massive failings of A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am stunned to learn that a newly created article such as this can be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The cited books and references are an implicit account of the notability of Barrett. Maybe administrators who do not understand this should not delete articles. --JWSchmidt 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JzG -M^ask 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Speedy deleter should WP:AGF when an article lists solid reference books like this one did. Not even a plausible WP:AFD candidate. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't consider a joke book a solid reference book, especially when nothing in the article explained its significance. Nor do I need to be lectured on good faith from someone who violates it as you did. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • He illustrated the joke book. It isn't being used as a reference other than he is the illustrator. Illustrators can meet notability guidelines.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that the book was being used as a reference, but nothing in the article said that he illustrated it. I am not denying that illustrators can meet notability guidelines. I am contending that the references were not explained. Calling the speedy deletion bad faith is bad faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I have made it clear that I am not myself accusing anyone of bad faith, and I think the less that is mentioned the better. However, in the light of remarks on this page, it is only fair to the article creator to show the books and references that were on the page, when the article was deleted, and it is clearly shown that Connor Barrett was the illustrator (my underlining). Tyrenius 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you specify which of the speedy keep criteria it meets? Stifle (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Selected books

• Cerf, Bennett, ed. illustrated by O'Connor Barrett Anything For a Laugh: A Collection of Jokes and Anecdotes That You, Too, Can Tell and Probably Have, 1946
• Barrett, Oliver O'connor ; Illus. By Richard Scarry, Little Benny Wanted a Pony, 1950
• Barrett, Connor, Myself Emerging; A book of sculpture and poetry" 1980

References

• Barrett, Connor, Myself Emerging; A book of sculpture and poetry" 1980
• Falk, Peter Hastings, Editor Who Was Who in American Art, Sound View Press, Madison Connecticut, 1985
• Noszlopy, George T., Jeremy Beach, editor, Public Sculpture in Birmingham: including Sutton Coldfield, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. 1998
• Opitz, Glenn B , Editor, Mantle Fielding’s Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors & Engravers, Apollo Book, Poughkeepsie NY, 1986

• Keep, notable artist, referenced and verifiable article. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment -- seeing virtual unanimity, I think there is no need to continue this vote and I invite Zoe to close it. This debate has been most superfluous: the original article failed to make clear notability claims explicitly and was thus accidentially speedied, but it was a matter of minutes to fix this, and the present article is no longer an arguable AFD candidate. dab (ᛏ) 09:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It has, however, served a useful purpose as an overwhelming endorsement of the article and an assertion that minor sculptors are as valid as (perhaps even more so than) minor Pokémon characters, which I think some amongst us were beginning to doubt. Tyrenius 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Up to the closing admin, but I think it would be warmly welcomed if the strength of support for keeping this article were recorded on the article talk page notice. Tyrenius 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable artist, article is referenced and verifiable, as per almost everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is interesting and informative. TKFMPardus 19:36, 11 August 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.