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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Whisstock

[edit]

19th century designer of toy soldier boxes? Fails WP:Creative spectacularly. I don't think that this guy is even notable within a subculture, unless it would be toy soldier collectors. Lithoderm 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Lithoderm 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep though needs referencing. After so many decades collectability = notability in my book. But refs needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biography does not appear to be notable even if the toy soldier boxes might be. Those are already covered at W._Britain - which features one of Whisstock's boxes. Enki H. (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as original author of the article I vote to keep as the boxes / labels are apparently a key part of the collectibility of Britians items (which surprisingly can apparently sell for many $1000's if rare and in good condition) - however, one without the other essentially seriously devalues the item! Alternatively could consider merging with Britians article - although Whisstocks paintings do come up for auction occasionally (see for example at Christies http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=3447108) - which I thought was interesting. Thus while he may not be a famous painter / illustrator, I felt he satisfied the "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" aspect of the rules (also would maybe satisfy toy soldier collectors who on occasion email me asking who he was!!!). James Whisstock (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge referenced material to W. Britain if references can't be found to substantiate enough biog to keep the article. "Fred Whisstock was one of the artists of the labels who joined Britains at the end of the First World War. His signature appears on the label and a set with a Whisstock box is much more sought after than the same set in a non-Whisstock box."[1] Two drawings in the Essex Record Office.[2][3] Named in 142 auction results, [4] including for his landscape watercolours:[5][6] one of them sold at Christies[7] (also search artprice.com, sub needed). See also WP:HB. Ty 06:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would he be the notable subject of a biographical article under these circumstances? He does not appear to be generally notable as an artist it seems (the auction results notwithstanding). I would support the merge + redirect though: the article about the boxes (assuming these are themselves notable) would provide the required context. Enki H. (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as things stand, there's not enough to substantiate an article with e.g. dates of birth/death even, so merge is the option. But if more material is found (which may exist in print sources) then he has achieved enough note within his field to justify an article. Ty 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently FW was also involved in the design of pictures featured on postage stamps. I would support biography option rather than artist. One of the editors of the page (Shipmate127) is very kindly sending FWs obituary published in the Southend newspaper, which may provide the additional biographic information as mentioned by Tyrenius - when this arrives in the next week or so I would be happy to include these data - or indeed Shipmate127 may wish to do this himself.James Whisstock (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I would advocate keeping the article for an agreed time, say one month, to allow for this source, but if it does not appear or provide enough information, then merging. Ty 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as per article's creator - Vartanza (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Userfy until print sources can be found. Abductive (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (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.