Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Kirby

Rick Kirby

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Before isn't returning enough to suggest notability and the refs in the article are very weak. The article reads like the bio of a respected but routine sculptor. There is currently an AfD about a piece of his work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate keeping this article with content merged from Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture), the refs are weak, but in my opinion just sufficient to pass notability requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The content you merged back appears to be have had been completely rebutted in the other AfD so is of little value. In the event that article is deleted then those references should be discounted for the purpose of this Afd and this difference used [1]. Please do not leave uncivil comments on my talkpage. Szzuk (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch. That was supposed to be a nice quote to go with the one on your userpage ... But really my thoughts revolve around looking at the subject in context with what I must presume is his most notable creation. Ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but I think it's likely that Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) will be deleted, so we can work from there. While it's true that most the references were rebutted to varying degrees by Editør in the other AfD, it is not clear how they will fare in relation to the creator rather than the sculpture, or exactly what is in Cocke 2009, but it's for others to decide on this, I am not !voteing, just pointing out the merge concept I developed for the other AfD. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is little information about the work or artist on the helmet page itself, a merge there would be better. Szzuk (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This proposal is inspired by Szzuk's vote to delete Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (see discussion), and seems more like an attempt to prove a point there, than a reflection of a belief that Kirby is not notable. Kirby's sculptures have been unveiled by the Queen, by Princess Margaret, by, Prince Edward, and by Seamus Heaney. More references can be come by if necessary, but I believe the threshold of notability is easily met. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references are weak, what point am i proving? Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about artworks are rarely kept if their creator has no article, as above, ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but as they are happening concurrently I would urge Usernameunique to find some references for this royal connection. The additional references are probably necessary. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The salient point about notability is whether the references exist, not whether they are all used in the article. Otherwise, to take as example a page that Szzuk created, Alyn Waters would be in serious trouble. Prince of Thieves, here are some royal references: 1, 2, 3, 4. And some more references: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Thanks for those. I will point out a few things, first I doubt Alyn Waters would survive AfD undeleted. Second, you can't assume people will know of sources they can't find, not everyone can pierce the ProQuest paywall. As I said before, I think the references are weak but just sufficient to show notability, and I am sticking with that for now. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added 16 unreliable sources to your new sutton hoo helmet sculpture page. On the 8th of January 2018 you added all but one of the references to this article and they too are unreliable sources. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk So just picking one source at random, this, how is it not WP:RS? Please explain. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the author of the page is a paid consultancy company - axle arts. The piece is little more than a paid for advert for the exhibition, hardly independent. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an exhibition at Bath Contemporary, which is connected to Axle Arts; but where do you get the idea that the author of the article is itself Axle Arts? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it was written by Axle Arts, it actually clearly states says the author is Jessica Hope, the Assistant Editor at The Bath Magazine. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]