Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hilliard (artist)

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Hilliard (artist)

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

Article appears to be about a wholly non-notable artist. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added an encylopedia source and much more text. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Parsons, Sara-Jayne (2006). "John Hilliard". In Lynne Warren (ed.). Encyclopedia of 20th Century Photography. Vol. 1. CRC Press. pp. 695–697. ISBN 0415976650.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The easily-found press stories about his art, and the fact that he's been collected by the Tate, make it obvious that he's a photographer of some significance, and passes both WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Links in the article to a detailed biography on the British Council site and to works by him in the Tate Gallery collection are clear indications of notability. A case of WP:BEFORE. AllyD (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've even heard of this photographer and it's not like I'm knowledgeable in the field. Reference in encyclopedia (cited above), plus press and other references, make it clear that this is actually a notable photographer. --Lquilter (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Word to the nominator - I'm not sure how you ran your searches, but if you googled based on article title, "John Hilliard (artist)" you won't get much. If however you google scholar search "John Hilliard" and combine with "photographer" you get 130+ hits in google scholar. --Lquilter (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And about the same number of hits if you swap "camera" for "photographer": link to scholar search. I agree with AllyD's assessment of speedy keep. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the encyclopedia article that Binksternet found. Even aside from everything else, we'd be foolish to delete an article on notability grounds if its subject already appeared in another encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason stated by User:Nyttend. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2012 (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.