Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Nichols Buttons

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. No discrimination to a request at WP:REFUND. Mabalu if you'd like it work on it, you may do so formally there. Mkdwtalk 05:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L. Nichols Buttons

edit
L. Nichols Buttons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this person/business meets the notability guidelines for WP:BIO/WP:CORP. Declined speedy deletion. Kelly hi! 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined the speedy as the article had already been challenged per the talk page, and there are claims that coverage exists in Vogue, the Sunday Telegraph, etc. This is a thorny one because we are talking about a mid-20th century British craftsman whose work would have had very high profile exposure, but he would not necessarily have been widely credited for that work. I have found one article published in a guild journal Article published in The Journal for Weavers, Spinners & Dyers - BUT that article was written by Dixie Nichols, the subject's daughter, so not exactly neutral/unconnected. A search for Lionel Nichols pulled up a book on Norman Hartnell that I actually have a copy of, so I checked - he is not mentioned in the book, the only Nichols is LA Nichols in the bibliography who wrote something about the Royal Family. I am really conflicted about this, because on technicalities, I can see it is almost definitely going to be deleted, but it makes me sad to think that it will be. Mabalu (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that allowed on Wikipedia per WP:Canvassing? Seems like a very obvious attempt to influence (or at least consolidate) the AFD outcome, which I think is pretty clearly going to be delete anyway. Mabalu (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We;ve discussed this extensive a few days ago at AN/I. When I started here I tried to look at all afds; then I found myself able to only do it in topics of interest where my !vote might help make a decision in a neglected or uncertain case. I can now do longer even do that, unless someone notifies me, and I have asked those interested to do so. As always, those who ask me cannot predict what I will say. I consider ST sensible, and find myself agreeing with ST a good deal of the time, but I do not look at ST's opinion before deciding my own; in fact, I try not to look atanybody's opinion before deciding, or even look at who it was that nominated it. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain This is the sort of industry for which there does exist some specialized coverage, but I do not have easy access to it. I simply cannot tell--it is possible the firm is notable, and it is also possible that the importance has been exaggerated by the spa author. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got to agree with DGG here about the uncertainty. It does seem notable since glass buttons from that time period from the UK is rare. Most glass buttons came from Bohemia. The thing is, this article is closely related to textiles and that's not Wikipedia's audience so I don't think it matters much one way or the other. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a discussion on the talk page:

    This article is about a key figure in the 1940s to 60s British Haute Couture industry and many buyers have requested a page and been suprised that there has ot already been one made. Articles about the said buttons have been in magazines such as Vogue, Interiors and the Sunday Telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistle1127 (talk • contribs)

    I'm not convinced that would satisfy WP:BIO, but will remove the tag. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    That it's been asserted that there have been articles about the buttons in Vogue, Interiors magazine, and The Sunday Telegraph indicate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    I cannot support retention because no citation information has been provided about which articles have discussed the buttons. I cannot support deletion because of FUTON bias and Wikipedia:Offline sources.

    Cunard (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick tcs 04:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the current sourcing and what can be found online (and what was found offline by Mabalu), I don't think this can pass WP:GNG. The old talk page statement found by Cunard is enough to show significance (saving the article from an A7), but, without the actual articles in question, it's not quite enough to prove the necessary notability to keep this article. clpo13(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space. Worldcat shows many possible references . Search as su:buttons. [1]. Someone has to be willing to do the work, of course. I think I've shown it's possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But who's going to do the rewriting? I mean I agree that it probably is notable, however, this type of article just isn't Wikipedia's target audience so maybe Wikipedia ought let this article go so that google searches can focus on providing a better top article. Just a thought! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument that just because something isn't for "Wikipedia's target audience" then it probably should be deleted (even if it is likely notable) is one of the most bizarre AFD statements I've ever seen on here. The question is about notability, not whether something is likely to match the requirements of a predetermined group of people. Mabalu (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking is Wikipedia doesn't have anyone with the interest (possibly info) to write a better article than what's already out there. However, from what I can tell, you'd be the best possible choice here to give it a go. And I believe that since google wants to now default to Wikipedia, Wikipedia should begin to take that into consideration seeing as it's pretty well known by now that Wikipedia can only attract certain types editors with the same interests. One evidence of that is the multiple times I encounter editors stating there are no more new articles to create. In fact, a ton of articles are ending up in AfD mainly because they are poorly written more than any other reason. Sure, the article gets tagged as "not notable" but the reality is that tag could be applied to almost anything. Pushing to keep notable articles that the majority of Wikipedia has little to zero knowledge in, is a losing battle since eventually they will be deleted. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to have it in my userspace, although I can't imagine where I'm going to find anything relevant for it as I've already tried several times to find sources. To be honest, I think deletion is inevitable in this particular case, but at least there IS a source out there in the guild journal I could find, so it won't be completely consigned to obscurity. Mabalu (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L._Nichols_Buttons&oldid=1076176280"