Albert Clark (artist) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This was speedy deleted A7 some time ago. The deleting admin User:Just Chilling has not edited since July so I have not tried to resolve with them. I recently noticed that this artist has an entry (albeit short) in Mitchell, The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists. That would have been enough to overcome an A7 if it had been known at the time. I don't intend to do much with this page (other than add the source) but an alternative to a standalone article would be to repurpose as a page on the Clark family of artists, of which there were a large number all doing animal portraits. Many of them have entries in the source I cited above. Spinning Spark 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Wigwagcreative: (original page creator) Spinning Spark 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Restore I don't think the deleted version is a great A7, to be honest. While the prose doesn't contain anything which particularly indicates he was successful or anything like that it did link to a few sources including [1] which suggests he is a significant artist. Even apart from that I don't see a problem with restoring it if someone wants to improve it. Hut 8.5 17:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Wigwagcreative never did anything besides creating this and William Albert Clark ( AfD discussion) in September 2015, so I don't know what you expect pinging them to accomplish. The only person involved with this page who's still active is User:DGG.
  If you don't expect to do anything besides add a source, I've got to endorse. This hagiography didn't make even a smirking nod toward NPOV; while there's sentences that could survive unchanged in a minimally-acceptably-neutral article, no whole paragraphs would. It might or might not have gotten deleted if tagged G11 depending who was watching CAT:CSD that day, but there's no way it wouldn't have been speedy draftified, and I'm actually kind of dumbfounded you would want to restore it in that state. — Cryptic 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • There are a few stray adjectives, but this isn't written in a promotional style. It's just a bullet-point biography. That DGG didn't tag it as G11 is probably the strongest proof possible that the tag would be wholly inapplicable. Wily D 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Restore The statement in the deleted version that Albert regularly painted portraits of the show’s prize winning animals is a weak claim of significance, but together with the entry in The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists I think it is enough. I will commit to removing promotional language if this is restored. A separate page on the family might be a good idea, but that is not for this forum. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There truly is nothing in the article that indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant. I probably would have brought this to AfD instead of using A7, but I can't really fault the A7 call. If somebody wants to write a new article about the subject, I'm fine with that. If they want the current text userfied, I'm OK with that too, but honestly, I think WP:TNT would be better. Not to mention that it was created by a literal WP:SPA, who, based on the username, is probably a PR agency, possibly https://www.wigwag.co.uk/creative. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It really shouldn't mater who created the article initially, but I can't see why anyone would pay a PR agerncy to create somethign like this. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • No, it really shouldn't matter. But, I find it helps me figure out where I want to set the WP:AGF knob on my spam-o-meter. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• I've temp-undeleted for discussion. Wily D 06:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the A7. There is a credible claim of significance, and that is sufficient to overturn the speedy deletion. History is a noise filter. If there is existing documentation of someone who lived more than a century ago, that is a credible claim of significance. Not expressing an opinion at this time as to biographical notability, which will be the issue at AFD, but we aren't at AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn WP:A7 clearly does not apply once you get past the lede. I'm not sure it survives an AfD, though, and would recommend restoring and then taking to AfD to discuss its overall notability and the COI discussed by RoySmith. SportingFlyer T· C 23:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn WP:A7 was not the proper course. And if the Spinning Spark is a very competent editor and AfD participant. If they think there is a problem, so do I. Lightburst ( talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, allow recreation - the A7 deletion was perfectly in order, the only sources were galleries selling his paintings, which does nothing for significance. Painting prize winning animals is not an assertion of significance - like, any number of people could be doing that. But an entry in The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists is enough to overcome A7. Probably not enough for AfD on it's own, but a strong indication there're enough additional sources for anyone who feels the need to improve the article. Wily D 17:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn – A 19th-century artist who is in a gallery, whose work has sold at auction, and/or who is in a reputable dictionary of artists, gets over the A7 line. No comment on whether they are actually notable or not. I don't see the article as being so promotional as to qualify for G11 either. – Leviv ich 14:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply