Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Family Portrait


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Clinton Family Portrait

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this is a notable example of 20th-century portraiture. Four citations are provided for the article, of which three are dead links to the artists personal website, the remaining link is a contemporaneous account of the portraits creation, but not artistic content, from a local newspaper. I can find no national or international critical coverage of the portrait since its 1995 creation, other than mirrors of this article. The article was created by a sockpuppet of a since banned user, User:Johnqdillion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think this article is non-notable. (first time participating in a discussion like this...let me know if I'm out of line in any way!) Rssyng (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added an additional reference from the Enclopedia of Arkansas History and culture. Maybe that will help with notability since it is a sanctioned website of the state of Arkansas carljenningtown
 * Fixed one of the dead links "Different Strokes" newspaper article carljenningstown|talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — User:carljenningstown  (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * redirect to the artists' page where it's already discussed. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I've added a couple more references that should resolve any previously mentioned issues. carljenningstown —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Referenced and of a notable subject. I have added more categories. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be of a notable subject, but it is not a notable portrait. Indeed, the quoted reference states that the Clinton White house didn't even know where it was. We need national or international coverage, more than a just brief flurry of local media coverage. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that we needed to proceed according "wikipedia notability guidelines", not make up our own policy. This article falls completely within the perameters of wikipedia notability guidelines. It does not require any subject to be nationally or internationally famous to be included with a stand alone article. It just has to be covered by several secondary and third party reliable sources independent of the proposed subject. This article meets all of those requirements that are mentioned in wikipedia inclusion guidelines. carljenningstown (talk) 6:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — User:carljenningstown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I still feel the sources are weak. This painting has no notability beyond the original local media coverage of its creation. The painting has since vanished, I cannot find records for it in the White House Art Collection or the Clinton Presidential Library. We need more contributors to this discussion! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the author can elaborate on why the painting is significant. I don't feel like there is enough information to establish notability as is. :-) Bali88 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Larry D. Alexander. Notability is not inherited: just being a picture of the Clintons (the only reason it has recieved attention) does not make it notable. As a  painting, I don't think the man who made it would merit an article on his painting activities alone (no works in major collections), so it's hard to see how this one work would be the subject of any critical attention.TheLongTone (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or at most Redirect to the artist. Ariconte (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - referenced and notable I have to agree. Seem to have recieved a lot of attention when made.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per BabbaQ. -- do ncr  am  17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All attention is the result of the giver & recipient being notable. Nothing to do with the painting itself. There is no content that cannot quite comfortably &more properly be included in the article on this preacher.TheLongTone (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2014 (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.