- 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. (non-admin closure) Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Gerald Wilkinson
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gerald Wilkinson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I very recently closed afd 1 as delete but the creating editor has provided a new version. The sourcing appears substantially the same kind of not quite there stuff but a real effort has been made to expand the test so it only seems fair to have another discussion on the new sources. Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, please can you elaborate on "the same kind of not quite there stuff", I really do not understand. Thank you
Tom_elm
talk
15:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Book reviews and local news items are not really enough imo to pass the
WP:GNG. His works contribute to notability by others not necesserily add to his own. However, you found extra stuff and it should be looked at.
Spartaz
Humbug!
15:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually book reviews of this sort do contribute to notability. A biography is about the life and the works of a person, and the sources like
JSTOR
41372216 go into significant depth on the work. It's a pity that they've been sorely mis-used to justify vague handwaves about "well received" (Wilton's review is rather critical of tone, organization, and even print quality) and the works are just a laundry list. Book reviews in journals such as the
Journal of the Royal Society of Arts are not Amazon astroturfing, and can be used to actually write prose about the works of the subject, based upon expert sources. We can even identify the expert author, again completely unlike Amazon. It was Andrew Wilton, former Keeper of British Art at the
Tate Gallery.
And that's just one of the reviews. Luke Herrmann tells us who one of the other experts is. As such not only is this a stub this is a stub with scope for further expansion on the works of the biography subject from expert sources already (now) cited. The only question is why on Earth these weren't cited 5 years ago. It would have saved a lot of bother all around. This is why one always cites sources from the start.
- Actually book reviews of this sort do contribute to notability. A biography is about the life and the works of a person, and the sources like
JSTOR
41372216 go into significant depth on the work. It's a pity that they've been sorely mis-used to justify vague handwaves about "well received" (Wilton's review is rather critical of tone, organization, and even print quality) and the works are just a laundry list. Book reviews in journals such as the
Journal of the Royal Society of Arts are not Amazon astroturfing, and can be used to actually write prose about the works of the subject, based upon expert sources. We can even identify the expert author, again completely unlike Amazon. It was Andrew Wilton, former Keeper of British Art at the
Tate Gallery.
- Book reviews and local news items are not really enough imo to pass the
WP:GNG. His works contribute to notability by others not necesserily add to his own. However, you found extra stuff and it should be looked at.
Spartaz
Humbug!
15:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 17:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and
salt per Bearian's !vote on the previous deletion page:
very many ordinary writers and artists have books on Amazon. There's just not enough available about this person. Google, blogs, and archives are not reliable sources.
Non-notable author; unless his writings begin to be internationally known 30 years after his death (let me tell you how likely THAT is) then this person doesn't belong on Wikipedia, due to simply not being that well known. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 ( did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)- Bearian's rationale held as little water then, when "Google, blogs, and archives" was preceded by people pointing to journal articles on JSTOR and pointing to specific articles in specific newspapers and not even mentioning Google and archives at all, as it does now. It would seem that neither of you even looked at the sources cited in the AFD discussion then, and in the article now. Uncle G ( talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The sheer number of citations from journal articles that discuss Wilkonson's work is enough for the subject to pass the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep For all the reasons I stated in the original nomination especially being a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London which I believe passes WP:NPROF criteria #3 "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Enough book reviews of his works on Turner for WP:AUTHOR. There were already enough in the version as nominated but I added a couple more. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure that the Fellowship mentioned above counts as the top-of-the-profession kind of recognition that is needed for WP:PROF#C3, but WP:AUTHOR is met by way of book reviews (which, in a book-oriented corner of scholarship, is also a spiritual pass of WP:PROF#C1, as it were). XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As an author the topic passes WP:NAUTHOR. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 15:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:AUTHOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:55, 23 March 2022 (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.