Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coxwold Pottery

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 Draftify. Not strictly the consensus, but reading between the lines, this is a reasonable outcome which meets the community's judgement that this isn't ready for mainspace and also meets ArchaicW's desire to have more time to work on this. I'm going to move it to Draft:Coxwold Pottery. It can be worked on there, with (almost) no deadline for completion. The WP:AfC review process will give you feedback on how you're progressing without immediate threat of deletion. Please take a look at WP:YFA for general guidance on how to write a good article, and also WP:NCORP for some more specific requirements for articles about a company. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coxwold Pottery

[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)

No indication that subject meets WP:GNG guidelines, let alone WP:NCORP. Current references on the page are 1) nothing more than a verification that Peter Dick died (nothing included about the article's subject), and 2) a non-independent source that mentions the subject only in passing. My WP:BEFORE search brought up no additional sources to add. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed that this short article is again thretened with deletion, I must say I'm puzzled. 'Largoplazo' initially threatened to delete it, I strongly contested this and he moved to 'Serious Issues'. Now 'Jmertel123' is not happy! I'm a bit puzzled again, as the point he makes seems to be quite minor - could you not just suggest whatever you think should be changed? Anyway, I am preparing a substantial rebuttal of this threat, but due to other commitments etc it will take me a few days, so I would be very grateful if you would do nothing for now Thanks @Largplazo: @Jmertel123: ArchaicW (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchaicW (talk • contribs)

Comment My concern is that there are not sufficient references to signify notability of the article's subject, and I was not able to find additional sources to meet the notability criteria. Specifically, see the general notability guidelines section of the notability policy. Certainly, if there are sources available that I couldn't find, please do add them. But without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, the subject simply doesn't merit an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - somewhat promotional. If Peter Dick is a well-known ceramicist, perhaps an article about him would be more appropriate. Deb (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point! It was not me, the writer of the article, that changed the title. My original title was 'Coxwold Pottery Peter and Jill Dick'. Also, to be even more semantic, it should really be 'Coxwold pottery', with a small 'p', as we are talking about the product, not the business. But across numerous references on the internet, it is almost always referred to as 'Coxwold Pottery', so maybe best left? ArchaicW (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jmertel23

Not sure if you read my last comment, as I think I may have got your 'username' misspelled, as I am not familiar with this mark-up language.

However, having studied your comments, I have had a new thought. Rather than spend time and effort trying to respond to your comments, it seems to me that it would be better to set out to improving the embryo article?

This I have started to do, specifically so far I have added a major quotation from a book on pottery techniques and two illustrations. Also, I am now in contact with some persons who were acquainted with the Coxwold Pottery and Peter and Jill Dick. They have provided me with an important Obituary for Peter Dick and promised to provide further information.

You may well ask why I did not do this in the first place instead of putting up such a short article with not enough references and links? (On that point, the lack of links on Wikipedia into the article I think is not surprising, as there was nothing there to link to! But on the wider Internet there are numerous references to the Coxwold Pottery and Peter and Jill Dick.)

Well, two reasons, first I thought I was writing in the spirit of Wikipedia that anybody could put up material and anybody could edit it, so if the article was up there others could find it and add to it.

Secondly, I never thought for a second that it would be jumped on so quickly and threatened with deletion! With 5.75 million articles on Wikipedia, it hardly seemed very important. I expected that I could simply add material to the article over the course of time.

So, could I please ask you not to delete this article now. I am already in possession of extra material that supports the believe that Coxwold pottery meets the notability criteria, but it will take time to contact others and to edit in the material.

Indeed, could I suggest that either you remove the deletion threat now, or leave it alone for say a month to allow me to create a more balanced article?

I can absolutely assure you that what has been written so far is honest and correct, is in no way meant to ‘promote’ the pottery and that no one will be mislead by what they read so far. Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATES Could anyone following this discussion please note that, as above, I have now added a considerable amount of material to the article and a good number of references. PLEASE NOTE I am not finished - I still have a number of edits to make! However I hope Jmertel23 will now recognise the depth of the article and please leave it in place! For anyone interested, I do suggest you search not on Wikipedia but 'Google Images Coxwold Pottery', where you will see many fine examples of the pottery. ArchaicW (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArchaicW, deletion is not a threat, it's simply that articles in Wikipedia's mainspace must meet Wikipedia's content policies. If you need to continue to work on it for it to meet those standards and you really believe you can do it, I'd recommend that you incubate the article either in the draft namespace or your userspace. It can be restored as a normal article once it meets those standards. Wikipedia does require that the subject of articles be covered substantially in independent, reliable sources, for important reasons, but your work won't be lost if you can't find any right now, you can work on it in a draft and submit it when things are ready.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alpha3031 Thank you for your helpful comments. Could you please note THAT THIS ARTICLE IS HUGELY CHANGED from the first version threatened with deletion by Jmertel23! It is re-structured, has illustrations and is literally double in length and now has added many relevant links and references to published works. I believe the article now demonstrates the position and status of the Coxwold Pottery/Peter and Jill Dick. (I'm sorry there is no book written c2000 that says 'Peter & Jill Dick were the greatest potters ever'!) But the numerous links and references I think demonstrate that they were widely acknowledged for their artistic skills and the quality of their pottery. I think now it meets most if not all criteria for notability etc? I'm sorry, but I can think of many Wikipedia articles which I have read which do not approach the level of the material I think I have now been able to present in this article. But if you can see more specific areas where you feel more information would be needed please let me know. But for anyone reading this now, IT IS A DIFFERENT ARTICLE from the one threatened with deletion. Many thanks to all following this discussion. ArchaicW (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the neccessary notability criteria for companies. As User:Deb said it might be worth looking into creating an article for the potter himself. I would suggest that you go through WP:AFC though as there are some issues with your article creations. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I reviewed the current sourcing, and Googled Coxwold Pottery to find more. Aside from this article in a book [[1]], there's unfortunately not enough meaningful coverage. I'll be blunt - I'm not in any way judging the quality of the pottery - it looks beautiful - but I generally discount most auction listings, since except for a few high end art houses, a wide range of items can be put on auction. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. I thought an option might be to redirect to Coxwold#Notable_residents, merging a mention into that section about the pottery and Peter, but my personal benchmark for including people on "notable resident" lists is that the person have their own article. I'm not seeing enough for a Peter Dick article with the available online sources. Others may feel differently about a merge to salvage some info - it could certainly be brought up on the Coxwold talk page Talk:Coxwold. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:25, 29 November 2018 (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.