Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Cropper

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Harvey Cropper}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harvey_Cropper Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Harvey Cropper}})

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the "Africa" delsort as an apparent misunderstanding of "African-American". I have added Sweden, and suggest that any WP:BEFORE include searches for Swedish sources, as Cropper moved there a long time ago according to multiple sources found in Google Books search. Bakazaka (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

::Also, this article seems like someone getting an early start on Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/SAAM African American Artists Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, and if that's the case then draftifying would be a sensible response. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I see many passing mentions in Google books, which makes me think that there is probably newspaper coverage that predates the Internet. Certainly not a clear-cut notability case. See the longish obit in Swedish that I just added.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

::I just noticed this was also AFD'd the same day it was created. A bit fast.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Nine citations, including 2 Oxford University Press, Arts Digest, and Scarecrow Press. Would you please give editors a reasonable chance to copyedit and add cites before instantly nominating for deletion? We are training at an editathon, and instant deletion nominations are not encouraging to new volunteers. Thanks. Broomstraw2 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep WP:HEY means he now meets GNG based on new sources added.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as recent updates to article show that subject passes WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - per recent updates. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.