Talk:Henry James Albright

Hello! This article has been proposed for deletion on two grounds: notability, and reads like an advertisement. While Mr. Albright certainly seems to have been a minor artist, I believe that neither ground is justified. My arguments follow.

1. Notability. To cite the Wikipedia criterion: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It then defines these terms; for each, I give my reason.

a. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. -- The primary coverage is in auction houses, which is fairly typical for a minor artist. They are reasonably reliable (though far from perfect) and the artist signature can help verify his existence and work.

b. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. -- The relevant facts are few, but they are addressed both directly and in detail.

c. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. -- Wikipedia's criteria for reliability are a very deep dive indeed, but suffice it to say that none of the article's contents seem contentious in any way (years of birth and death), works created.

d. "Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. -- The article indeed has three secondary sources; I will add a fourth.

e. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. -- I have no affiliation with the subject (and indeed have never heard of him outside of writing this article). As far as I know, no one stands to benefit from this article.

2. Advertisement. "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." -- The article discusses dates of birth and death, his teachers, friend and circles, and a company that sold his ceramics. None of them seem like they would encourage readers to buy his artworks; they are simple facts.

Of course I will be very glad to hear opposing viewpoints, but hope that they will directly address my arguments above.

with all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I further note that he is included in the RKD database for Art History: https://research.rkd.nl/en/detail/https%3A%2f%2fdata.rkd.nl%2fartists%2f103272. It in turn cites Who was Who in American Art, p. 7. Unfortunately I cannot read this entry myself.