Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Whittington

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) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clark Whittington

Clark Whittington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This and redirect Art-o-mat were both prodded as they were both duplicates (apparently involving cutting and pasting) of a Cigarette machine#Art-o-Mat. I seconded the prod of this article and prodded the latter with Unsourced article seems promotional in nature and is a duplicate of similarly-prodded Clark Whittington article. The last paragraph (which was removed from the other article) is clearly a promotion. There appears no reliable source independent of the inventor or Artists in Cellopane that demonstrate significant coverage and discussion per WP:N and WP:V. At the time the prod on this was contested, both either had no references or nominal references connected with organization that is trying to promote Art-o-Mat. There is still no reference separating Whittington from Art-o-Mat, and nothing to indicate that he would be noted for anything else. Both articles and the section are still promotional in nature. B.Wind (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I have twice pointed out to the nominator the many reliable sources available from a Google News archive search that show notability. The lack of sources separating Art-o-mat from Clark Whittington is a reason for redirecting one article to the other, as the nominator has perfectly correctly done, not for deleting this information altogether. This isn't something that belongs in the cigarette machine article, other than possibly as a brief mention with a link to the article under question here, any more than the article on J. M. W. Turner should be merged with paintbrush - the cigarette machine is simply one of tools of his trade. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple independent sources: [1], [2], [3].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep The google search above provides a great deal of sources. That most seem to report on this as a novelty says a great deal about the long-term notability of the project (nor is this artist the first to come up with this idea). However, that's not part of our discussion. As it stands, there is some notability for this artist around the Art-o-Matic concept based on the coverage alone. I'd be interested to see where this all stands in a few years. freshacconci talktalk 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Those Google News results span 12 years [4][5]. How much longer do you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Well, that's one source for 12 years ago, when Whittington apparently started this. I don't see how that's important. Is this all he's done in 12 years? That in itself brings up some issues of notability. Were he a young artist starting out and receiving all this press, trivial as it is, that would be impressive. It's actually not much to show for 12 years of work. freshacconci talktalk 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. But there are 88 more reliable sources from the intervening years, as I pointed out in my post above. Your argument for the weakness of your keep position was a lack of long-term notability, which those sources show. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't understand why this is so important to you. I've !voted for keep, but I feel it's a weak keep. Yes, there's 88 sources over 12 years. But those are mainly trivial sources (i.e. passing mentions, fluff pieces, etc.: the sources are not in question, just the tone). Add them all up, sure it's notable. But, as I've said before, it's for one work of art and that's all Whittington seems to have done in 12 years. And as I have already said, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. If there had been some more substantial coverage over the past 12 years, or the artist had accomplished more, this wouldn't be an issue. But as it stands, this artist's notability is weak at best. freshacconci talktalk 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This isn't particularly important to me - I had never heard of this artist or his work before I saw the article. I was just replying to your point about long-term notability. If this has had continuing coverage over twelve years then why do you question where this will stand in a few more years? Just how much coverage does it need to make notability more than weak? And how long does it take for something to no longer be a novelty? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mild keep. Notable for its novelty, not problematic for commercialization, in my view. Richard Myers (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger. We are only concerned with one thing, which is whether this subject has achieved notability according to wikipedia requirements through sufficient coverage in secondary sources, which it clearly has. I would like to see some more of the sources used as references in the article, however. It may be that the article would be better titled as Art-o-mat than the name of the artist, but that is a secondary consideration. Ty 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I PRODed this originally; I found hits for Art-O-Mat, so I didn't PROD it at the same time, but searching g-news for something about Whittington that doesn't relate to Art-O-Mat yields nothing. His only claim to notability is the press generated by the Art-O-Mat. Art-O-Mat as its own article I'd say to keep, but not the article about its creator. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Isn't that an argument for reversing the redirect made by the nominator (which I would fully support) rather than for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• You could put it that way; my "delete" was referring to Clark Whittington since it's the nominated article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• It would be better to change your !vote to reflect that, as we don't delete valid content just because it's got the wrong title. We change the title. I would also support that. Ty 09:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• The title wouldn't need changed- the other had text which was changed to a redirect. A simple revert will bring it back. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per Phil Bridger. Ample reliable sources, showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - covered in reliable sources and over a long period of time so it negates any on-event aspect. As for the notability of Whittington verus the art-o-matic, an artist is known by his work, and his notability is inextricably linked with it. As it seems the art-o-matic is them main claim to fame, then a single article about him and his major work along with a redirect is a perfeclt reasonable approach to addressing the content. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Snow keep and tag for sources, as they are easily found with even the laziest of searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment just added a couple sources. Needs expansion. Perhaps a name-change to Art-O-Mat might be discussed on the talk page/ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's at Art-o-mat already. It's a redirect right now, but there is content from before it was redirected. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Move and redirect to Art-o-mat. This "biography" has no biographical information, rather only details regarding this novelty, therefore there is no assertion that the subject is notable independent of it. Adam Zel (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2009 (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.