Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glynn Thomas

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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glynn Thomas

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

The article does not meet the WP:ARTIST criteria using sufficient reliable sources and appears unlikely to be able to have that addressed in the near future (the article has been tagged as needing sources since 2007). The first few pages of GNews matches shows only others with the same name and I fail to find evidence of significant impact in GBooks. I have been unable to verify the claim of having works in the Ashmolean using their online catalogue and being commissioned is not of itself notable. Fæ (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, delete. Difficult to tell using GNews because of all the other Glynn Thomases out there, but ultimately the onus in on the article creator to prove notability (or anyone who fancies trying to rescue it). As none of the claims are seem to be backed up in independent sources, this article is not reliable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If his works are in the museums stated, he does pass WP:CREATIVE. But refs are needed. I have found one, in the Museum of London catalog, [1] and search for his name. (For some reason the complete link triggered our blacklist, which seems extremely odd.) Others however need to be found. I am not sure of the completeness of the Ashmolean online search. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MOL example might not be what it seems - I think this artwork was used on one of the illustrative posters about the history of London rather than being on exhibit in the sense intended by ARTIST. However, I am uncertain as it has been about 5 years since I was last there and we could do with confirmation as to the significance of the work being on display (i.e. just for graphic design or illustration purposes or exhibition as a stand-alone work of art). For those that may not be aware, the MOL is a history museum rather than intended as a space for art display. Fæ (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline seems a solid established printmaker; it's little use looking for much coverage online, but that does not mean he is not notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to lack of outside sources indicating notability--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:13, 2 March 2011 (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.