Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Goddard FCSD

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 and move to Lily Goddard. Arkyan • (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Goddard FCSD

Lily Goddard FCSD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I appreciate that the author wants to create a page for his mother, but I don't think the supplied sources satisfy WP:BIO. The external links seem to establish the fact that she produced a couple of books—at least one apparently self-published—but I'm not seeing the notability here. Deor 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Week keep - RSA membership implies a certain level of notability in her specialised field, as does who she worked for. If the article is kept it should be moved to Lily Goddard without the FCSD.Madmedea 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's a bit thin in its present state, but I'd argue that her FRSA (much more of a distinction than the FCSD in my opinion) confers notability. Further, her work's in the V&A and some of the clients listed are impressive. I'd say the author's done enough to justify being allowed - and encouraged - to carry on fleshing out the article. A photograph would be good, as would be a couple of illustrations of samples of her work. BTLizard 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my nom was badly expressed; what bothers me most is the lack of sources. The article seems to depend wholly on one obit in the CSD magazine, to which I don't have access (and the wording of the citation makes me wonder whether the article mightn't be a copyvio). I realize that Ms. Goddard's period of activity in her profession predates the WWW, but Google turns up nothing at all about her memberships or professional activities. I think more RSs are needed to satisfy WP:BIO. Deor 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - IMO writing the definitive guide on coalhole rubbing (most kids who grew up in London, Manchester and other coalhole-heavy cities will be remember it from primary school) is in and of itself grounds for N, quite aside from her own creative work - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and move to Lily Goddard - probably squeaks by WP:BIO based on FRSA/FCSD. I'll assume "coalhole rubbing" is more innocent than it sounds to American ears. MastCell Talk 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and move to Lily Goddard, as per MastCell -- The Anome 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Having been invited to comment, it is clearly obvious that it is impossible for me to be objective. It should also be obvious that gratuitous and patronising observations on my motivations and alledged copyright contraventions are somewhat objectionable at best . I completely agree that the article is poorly titled and had already considered changing that to a more standard form (apologies - newbie alert). I could also upload a picture and samples of her work both from her main field of textile design and the subsidiary field of poetry although I personally feel that this would be overstating her notability. As this is the second time this article has been flagged by the same person, I am reluctant to expend time on this until the powers that be make up their minds as this makes very little difference to me at the end of the day. I am very grateful to those commentators who appeciate that that fellowship of two organisations with Royal Charters is not to be dismissed too lightly and to the fact that having one's work housed in a premier London museum suggests a certain notability. Sadly the WWW is a difficult source for work that produced 20 or more years ago. If someone would like to tell me what more is required I will consider the contribution further. Larry Goddard 19:03, 20 April 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.