- 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. Notability is definitely not limited to notability achieved within the subject's lifetime, and the discussion indicates that WP:BIO1E does not apply to this case. RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gerry Dalton (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)
Doesn’t meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Majority of the articles about him were after his death, the wiki article is only once sentence long, stating his nationality and his profession. After a thorough search for any other pre-death articles about him, I feel he does not meet guidelines to have an article. Rusted AutoParts 03:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A decent article could be written with the given sources. History is full of people who only achieved posthumous fame. Curiocurio (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on the person. I don’t feel Dalton is one of them. Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The aspect of articles after death seems to be the thing being focused on. Those three examples aren’t fair because they all have had immense significance in their lives. Did Dalton? Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They didn't have "immense significance" during their lives, and it's not our responsibility to judge the merits of his art; various experts feel his works are worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Picking apart my wording doesn't discount the point. There's no fair measure in regards to Dalton, and the three you have brought up. His work hasn't had an international reverence, and the garden's only seen media coverage now that they're posthumously trying to save it. This still has no barrings on Dalton's notability. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice towards recreation should coverage continue. Seems like WP:BIO1E. All that happened here is that he gots lots of coverage (posthumously) for his sculpture garden. 100% of the coverage was published in the last week of October and first week of November 2019; there is no other coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets the GNG rule. The fact that he only came to wider notice after his death is irrelevant. He has had in-depth coverage for a body of work created over decades during his lifetime. It isn't just the garden, his whole home is full of art. It's in the nature of outsider artists that they are suddenly discovered, often too late. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI think that might be a rather novel interpretation of GNG. For example, if someone made terrible art over their lifetime, and made one good thing at the very end of their life that was posthumously recognized in four articles, they would qualify under what you are saying. So we would have people who made one good thing (BIO1E) getting articles. I don't think that is the intention of the GNG. as WP:GNG says: "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". That is not the case here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter whether the art is good or not. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, my point only illustrated that the coverage is what counts, and the coverage here is BIO1E. Single event with short-term coverage. Short term coverage of a life's work is not the same as long-term coverage of a life's work.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You have misunderstood BIO1E. The event referred to there is the subject of the article, not the coverage of it which may occur over time or all at once. This is not a single event because his life was not a single event. It was a decades long event and the bunching of the coverage in a short period after his discovery is not relevant as the coverage discusses his life and work as a whole. See this source for instance: Campaign to save deceased Irish artist’s life’s work which says "his project remained a secret for thirty years". Note the phrase "life's work". Philafrenzy (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misinterpreting the basics of our notability rules. He got zero coverage during his lifetime. He got brief posthumous coverage. The mistake in your argument is that you are saying brief coverage is OK, as long as the coverage is about something you have been doing a long time. You've been flower arranging at home your whole life, and got three articles in the newspaper in October? Welcome to Wikipedia! That is incorrect and subverts the intention of the notability guidelines. In any case, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree "History is full of people who only achieved posthumous fame.". There are a number of notable people that note him too, including mayor of London and the chief executive of the Royal Academy of Arts. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Being heralded by famous people doesn’t necessarily equate to the person themselves being notable. Philippe's is a famous LA restaurant, yet the founder Philippe Mathieu doesn’t have his own article. Rusted AutoParts 07:40, 21 November 2019 (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.