Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Palmer (sculptor)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) House Blaster^talk 02:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Palmer (sculptor)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any more SIGCOV sources. Given the only source is the single source currently in the article, there are not "multiple sources" as required by the aforementioned guidelines. House Blaster^talk 20:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Architecture. House Blaster^talk 20:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Dictionary of British Sculptors gives quite an in-depth biography, and references other secondary sources which discuss his works. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that source gives an in-depth biography. However, all but one of the references appear to be to be primary sources (letters, archives, etc.). There are two exceptions. The first is a citation to Wren Society, Volume III, which in turn cited a letter that trivially mentions a man named Palmer (who may or may not be William Palmer). The second is to Antiquaries Journal, Volume XXII. I just spent a good 15 minutes looking specifically for that quote to see what coverage it has, and I was unable to find it in TWL despite it having access to the entirety of the journal. If someone else has more luck finding this source/how in-depth the coverage is, please ping and I will revisit this. House Blaster^talk 22:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. It's a really common name, with what, 30+ people at William Palmer. You haven't sifted your BEFORE properly - there's plenty there, including snippet view: "PALMER , WILLIAM of London , 1673-1739 An important early eighteenth century sculptor of whom a good deal is ...(known presumably), and "one of the most important of early eighteeenth-century sculptors" at page 77 here. There will be plenty more that (gasp, shock horror!) isn't online. Please don't do more noms like this. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that sources can in fact be found offline. I am also aware that that users are not required to magically know what sources exist offline BEFORE nominating an article. That being said, we are all human, and this nom was a mistake on my part. My apologies for the waste of time. I have withdrawn the nomination. House Blaster^talk 02:26, 11 July 2022 (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.