Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Mulder


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn, with hearty thanks to the improvers and a special sticker for User:Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Mulder

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unclear why this man may be notable. The main source is from 1718. Delete. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed opinion to keep after expansion by JFW &#124;  T@lk  13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He was a notable engraver who helped illustrate an important early work Insects of Surinam. The distasteful anecdote in the story is given undue weight.  I will try to decode Dutch sources using Google Translate, and tone it down a bit when I have time later.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than a search for reliable sources. There's no mention in the nomination regarding stated prerequisite searches being undertaken by the nominator prior to nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica, if I see you make this "BEFORE" remark again (and in this case to someone who's been an admin since 2004) I am going to cite you for making a personal attack: not assuming good faith. Enough with this templated nonsense already. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Northamerica1000 should reword the comment to remove the word "nominator", but the point of the comment appears to have the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have great respect for the two editors taking Northamerica1000 to task above. However, I just don't see that mentioning WP:BEFORE in an AfD debate is an offensive thing to do.  Gentle reminders of its wise precepts are always in order, in my opinion.  Especially when, as in this case, my own search uncovered many useful references discussing Joseph Mulder in a matter of seconds.  I also don't see why the word "nominator" is objectionable, since our AfD procedures do ask certain things of an editor who wishes to nominate an article for deletion.  Yes, they are requests and are not mandatory.  I know that.  If "nominator" is considered an insult of sorts, then I hope that 1000 administrators will be unleashed upon uncivil editors who say far worse things with impunity every single day.  Please forgive me for noticing that other things exist behind the scenes here at the world's greatest encyclopedia.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article and added references. I will ask an editor I know who is fluent in Dutch to review the source for the story about the baby.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I created this article, so obviously I believe he is notable. His notability rests on two main themes. First of all, he is included in Arnold Houbraken's book of artists, which (however scatalogical the story may be) means he is notable, period. This book of artists is considered today to be one of the top 1000 books most important to Dutch national heritage. Second of all, his works today reach very high prices, placing him well above the notability minimum for artists. The need for reliable sources unfortunately also means that the scatological story happens to be the only one on hand. Surely we don't delete biographical articles based on our perception of the quality of the biographer? The artist's work should speak for him, but as yet I have found no public domain examples (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Jane (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a clear keep, IMO. I've tweak the poop story a little bit. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, editors beware: his name is also spelled "Josef". I found another nice tidbit and added it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a clear keep, IMO. Others have already stated good reasons above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Jane makes a good case. Notability is confirmed.   D r e a m Focus  00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2011 (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.