Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Anne Petrie


 * 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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Helen Anne Petrie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible copyvio of http://hubpages. com/hub/female-apartheid-south-african-painterHELEN-ANNE-PETRIE <-this link (spaces added as link is blacklisted). I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion as that link's FAQ also states ''Do I own a topic? HubPages does not assign ownership of a specific topic to a Hubber. Anyone is free to write on any topic they like. However, by creating a high number of Hubs filled with original, useful content, you will boost your HubPages status and you may become recognized in the community as an expert.'' so it might not be a copyvio. I'd also like to nominate Petrie, helen anne for deletion as a redirect to Helen Anne Petrie. A v  N  11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  11:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this article has only just been deleted... numerous sock puppets are working on it too.  Teapot  george Talk  12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes - Here's some things I found, with no conclusions: Hubpages has a copy of the same text (user-submitted content, recently created) "http://hubpagesREMOVETHIS.com/hub/female-apartheid-south-african-painterHELEN-ANNE-PETRIE", There's another copy of the text on this userpage here User:Montreux69, There's another copy here, and there's a PDF upload on Commons with the same content . In any case, it's probably a copyvio from somewhere. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was copied from here I think...http://oziwizard.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html  Teapot  george Talk  15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The user page mentioned by linguist was speedily deleted. ("‎G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://oziwizard.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html") The article must then be a copyright infringement too. A  v  N  09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but trim to short stub. See below. Athough the claim she has a work in the Tate does not seem correct, she does seem notable from things like this from Bonhams. But the current article reads like a poor magazine profile & is probably a copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but drastically cut down to stub per above...She seems genuine.. Modernist (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails verification and notability requirements. There are a mere 29 google hits. Most repeat the same text as on hubpages.(Link blacklisted. Type a dot where it says DOT) This text is not reliable. It says she is in the Tate and National Portrait Gallery, London. She is in neither. It says she is several other national museums, collected by named royalty and collected by a stellar cast, including Estate John F. Kennedy, Estate Frank Sinatra, Bill Clinton, Madonna, Mike Myers, David & Victoria Beckham etc. This is not credible. There are four auction results from Bonham's (three in September 2008, one in February 2009) and two watercolours donated to the Royal Collection (annual report y/e 31 March 2008). These by themselves are not sufficient to keep an article. There is no evidence of any material on this person before the last two years.  Ty  01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Possibly a WP:HOAX and certainly too many problems with WP:V and WP:RS. The entire tone of this biography coupled with a complete lack of any reliable sources -- and no mention anywhere other than self-submitted websites -- gives it a very "hoaxy" feel. As stated above, searches in the collections of the Tate, National Portrait Gallery and other galleries find no results. (The 2 Royal collection pieces were not acquired, but rather "bequeathed by the artist" after death). This same copyviolation article goes back to at least a deletion in June 2007 as seen here which indicated a copyright of 2006 by Sebastian L.S. Schwagele. A google search shows Schwagele is responsible for creating and submitting this information on the internet art sites -- including registering as User:Helen Anne Petrie and submitting the latest version as indicated here. And probably this incarnation User:Helen anne petrie (1933-2006) one week later. Until independent scholarly sources from the international art community write about this person, the bio should be deleted and because of the persistent addition by sockpuppets, it should probably be salted too. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  15:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete Seems more like an attempt to promote sales than a hoax, but in view of the issues raised above, & weak claims to notability, delete. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tyrenius above...Initially I thought she had work at the Tate and was a viable possibility...seems to be simply not true...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are several copies of this article in the User space. Type User:Helen and a couple pop up. Search the user space and there is another one.  Some kind of scam is trying to use Wikipedia for a link farm or to increase the value of paintings. Drawn Some (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be the case. And this article has always been deleted as a G12 violation. However, this Afd discussion is needed so that we can determine the suitability of including even a non-copyrighted bio for this person based upon WP:BIO. That's why I'd like to see this discussion run its course before all these copies are speedied. I would like to know if there is any source of info for this person. — Cactus Writer |   needles  06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that all three of the copies in user space be deleted and the users blocked as sockpuppets now and then the copy in article space can continue through AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2009 (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.