Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. H. Chapman

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. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. H. Chapman

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

Long treatment of an illustrator without any references, so it is likely original research or a copyright violation. Either it should be checked for copyright violations/plagiarism/close paraphrasing or deleted. It's had a template for RS for 4 years. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the original editor was working off a "Hand written scrap of paper written by CH Chapman dated 12-8-1970", "Hand written material submitted to “the Kendrick Comet”, May 1897", "Musings of his travels by train as written by C H Chapman, June 1937", and an interview this looks like original research in part. Further, since one of the sources is "Various newspaper articles", this is plagiarism due to inadequate credit. If you think the topic is otherwise notable (you make no argument against notability), but the text is poor, you can stubify the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The description of his work makes it clear that in his day he was a significnat illustrator. The lack of adequatre sourcing is not a reason for deletion. The article should be tagged as requiring better sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged as needing reliable sources since 2009. Somebody should confirm that the article is not another hoax (by finding a reliable source for it that establishes notability); then somebody could either remove everything but a two sentence description or go through the article and remove what cannot be attributed to a reliable source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sydney Morning Herald death notice, Sydney Morning Herald attribution, "Billy Bunter" V&A artwork listing, book tribute to Chapman (aka Frank Richards), Bio (not amazing, but a lot of work for a hoax). Should be tagged with {{ref improve}} not {{afd}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (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.