Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Whicker

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Whicker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Stub article about an artist that strongly fails WP:GNG. Looking for sources turned up nothing relevant except for a list of artists in Britain |at this link. Article was also previously full of copyrighted content, which when removed left practically nothing. Sgubaldo (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, United Kingdom, and Australia. Sgubaldo (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete You would think a notable artist would get results on Australian search engine Trove. Nothing also in gnews. 1 relevant hit in gbooks which is a small mention. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding much on a BEFORE BrigadierG (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was able to improve the sourcing and to add citations for the three public collections. Whether all three are notable collections, I'm not sure... I also added a little content + sources. I'm holding off on !voting at this time, as I'd first like to see if anything else of interest can be found. Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is not even close to meeting the notability guidelines. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any RS. Given his age (early-mid twentieth century), some offline sources might possibly exist, at which point the page could be re-submitted, but presently fails relevant criteria. Cabrils (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.