Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denys Spittle

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 was Keep (closed by non-admin) per consensus. References added, notability established. RMHED 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denys Spittle

Denys Spittle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Assertions of notability, but no evidence supplied Mayalld 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have written this entry on Denys Spittle since is an important figure in architecture (RCHM) and collecting important works of art eg illuminated manuscripts which have recently been exhibited at Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Currently there is little web presence for this person so I thought It important to do a biog of him so his contribution to archeology, art history etc is saved for future researchers. If this is not correct for wikipedia then please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkdale (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note I moved the above comment from the creator from the article's talk page. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep co-author of some academic-looking books, and although Google only shows one news article, it is the New York Times and does appear to assert notability. Given this fellow's period of activity, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more news sources that simply aren't online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The page creator described him as important but unknown Mayalld 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete Borderline notability shown Mayalld 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep Sufficient notability now established Mayalld 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. I have done some cleanup, which makes article read quite a bit better. Still needs work. Decoratrix 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for your interest. This is a work in progress, perhaps I should have written an article offline first, but I am new to WP so...
    This is why I want to keep this entry and continue working on it...From the top of my head: Denys Spittle was educated at Cambridge Uni, wounded in action in WW2 and was left on a greek island to recover, his colleagues forgot about him and he spent the rest of the war wandering around said island with his notepad drawing broken Corinthian columns. This was to become an important archaeological find, once he was picked up from the island at the conclusion of the war. He authored 5 + volumes of Samothrace. He is an expert in manuscripts and his vast collection was displayed at Fitzwillie Cambridge. He was head honcho at Cambridge office of RCHM. He had many valuable works of art that he collected. He was awarded the OBE. He was FSA since 1956.
    My entry was put on speed delete by Mayalld, he bases his conclusion on my reporting that Spittle was unknown. What I meant to say was that he is virtually unknown now, and online he has virtually no presence, his books are out of print and so on. I have no vested interest in championing Spittle other than I thought his input into architectural history and archeology should be noted for future reseachers in architecture/art history/archaeology. Thanks to Iain99 for showing me how to enter onto this discussion.Kirkdale 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
consider tagging new articles "underconstruction" (in double curly brackets, not quotes), to discourage over-zealous editors from deleting uncompleted articles. Peterkingiron 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to say that I have no particular vested interest in getting the article deleted. I'd have done just the same for any article that failed to show apparent notability, on the basis that if we don't adopt a rather tough line on non-notable bios, then they will multiply. As the article has improved somewhat, I'm moving to a more neutral position. If it improves further, I'll move again Mayalld 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Looks notable enough and now plenty of references have been added. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough information to show that he is notable. That's enough to justify a keep--this is not a vote on article quality.DGG (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly enough information about notability. Tag with a needs verifiable sources to generate more research as needed. This sort of article appears to address a systemic bias in wikipedia towards post-Internet-era work. --Lquilter 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Looks moderately notable to me. I also note that page is marked "under construction" (though not tagged as such). It is most discouraging to new editors to have their article deleted before they have had a chance to complete writing it. Peterkingiron 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of sources now, looks reasonably notable. I must echo Peter's comments - if an article is work in progress then unless it's obviously nonsense or vandalism tagging it for deletion before the author's had a reasonable chance to finish it is a bad idea, and needlessly bitey. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't intend to be too fierce with a new user, so apologies if I was. Glad to see that the end result is that the article has been rapidy improved to a good standard. Mayalld 16:02, 12 November 2007 (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.