Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hunt Painter


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

William Hunt Painter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

When reviewing this article for DYK, I noticed that it is not clear how this 19th century amateur botanist and pastor is notable per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The sources cited are primary, self-published and/or passing mentions, and his scientific work seems to be of strictly local significance. I can't immediately find a reliable secondary source discussing this person in any depth.  Sandstein  17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not clear if this AfD is based on notability or on the lack of sources describing his life. I'm presuming it is is notability as not having sufficient sources is not usually a reason to delete a notable person's article. (I thought)... and there is an obituary by the Botanical Society of Great Britain. He is of "strictly local significance", but he is mentioned in American Botany books (North American wildland plants: a field guide - Page 466) as soon as you press the books link above. Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:PROF says "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This person's Flora of Derbyshire has been cited by many since its publication and a later botanist updated it. This book is still under active review for future publication. This person has a plant named in his honour. The Shropshire Botanical Society newsletter is a reliable source and it invested money in DNA testing to question this person's findings. Museum's across the UK include this person's botanical findings. There are 1,810 hits for him and his book here and notable mentions in Google Scholar. Victuallers (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. This nicely done piece about a 19th Century botanist has been the subject of a Wikipedia Did You Know and it boggles why we would now want to immolate the article on a technicality. Notability guidelines are just that, not some sort of divinely-directed absolute law. Elimination of this information would not in any way improve the encyclopedia project, but would rather diminish it without corresponding benefit. Carrite (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been published on the main page as a DYK? item yet, it has been nominated as such. That's why I reviewed it.  Sandstein   22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake noted. Still a keeper. Tag for sources, if necessary. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call apparently failing the GNG a "technicality".--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You assume he fails it, I assume he passes. HERE'S ONE BIOGRAPHICAL LINK. Bear in mind this is a dude from the 19th Century and most shit on him is NOT going to be a quick find on Google, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A server is down so I can't pull this link up, but it's pretty clear that this is a botanist who has made an impact among other botanists, which is what we are looking for with notable scientists:

Search results, herbarium specimens collected by Rev William Hunt ... (help). previous searches. Rev William Hunt Painter. Rev William Hunt Painter ( 16/7/1835 - 12/10/1910). Search results. Search results, herbarium specimens ... ''herbariaunited.org/specimensearch/?collector=William... ''- Cached Carrite (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Information ABOUT PAINTER'S WIFE, same source as the first I mention. Carrite (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's THE NEWSLETTER of the Shropshire Botanical Society. You will notice that there are a substantial number of species named after Painter, who was clearly a pioneer scientist in the botany of this region. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's A PAPER ON THE MOSS EXCHANGE CLUB (1896-1923), which includes material on Painter's biography. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another ISSUE OF THE NEWSLETTER of the Shropshire Botanical Society with multiple incidental mentions of Painter. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ... You get the point. This is all from just a relatively few minutes on Google, without touching any scholarly journals of the day and bearing in mind that this is a 19th Century person. If there is a sourcing problem with this article, tag for sources. Keep, improve, move along. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted, but these are all self-published sources by local societies, and even they mention the subject only in passing. That's not sufficient per WP:GNG.  Sandstein   05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep based on sources found. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced article of notable botanist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep the nomination was 4 days after creation when there was evidence of multiple collaborators, source improvement in progress and the article included information on his species discovery which would almost invariably satisfy PROF#1. Given this context, if there was an improvement discussion to be had around notability policy interpretation, this might have been better started on the article talk page with a view to going to AFD rather than the reverse. Fæ (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This was a hasty nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Agreed. Some devotees forget that some editors have not got the free time to do instant responses, it seems a little limited to suggest that just because google hasn't digitised it- the source doesn't exist.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: to my mind this is a lovely article - well researched - and an example of what makes Wikipedia good. I am not sure why anyone might want this article deleted as notability seems established via the sources included.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment. Editors here may be interested in the Arbcom debate Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling initiated by the nominator of this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm clearly missing something here, what's the relevance to this?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable, as established above. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:55, 18 April 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.