Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace William Petherick


 * 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 speedy keep. There appears to be clear consensus that this page is worth keeping and notable with the appropriate sources, albeit in need of desperate cleanup. I am therefore withdrawing this nomination, although hopefully heeds Animalparty's advice about how to write (and how not to write) an article in the future. Thank you! (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Horace William Petherick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources currently used in this article are subpar (a blog, trivial entries in a violin database, works written either by him or a relative, obituaries, etc.) and do not appear to establish notability for Petherick. A Google search and a search in Google Books don't turn up anything better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have been pretty notable as an illustrator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is clearly my fault, I should not have uploaded the article until it was completed. I hope I have clarified notability: Horace William Petherick (1839-1919) was an artist and illustrator, a violin conniseur, and a writer. As an artist, four of his works are in public collections in the UK; as an illustrator, he illustrated over 100 books, some of which are still in print, and his work can be found in digital collections at the British Library, the Osborne Collection of Early Children's Books, and the Baldwin Library of Historical Children's Literature; as a violin connisseur, he owned both a Stradivarius and a del Gesù; and as an author, three of his books are still in print. Johncosgrave (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is based in part on the Bear Alley blog post by Robert J. Kirkpatrick, who is a well published researcher on children's fiction, and the blog post was thoroughly well researched. I am awaiting delivery of his book "THE MEN WHO DREW FOR BOYS (AND GIRLS): 101 FORGOTTEN ILLUSTRATORS OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS 1844 - 1970" so that I can change the references to the blog to page numbers in the book.Johncosgrave (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Additional material added on his somewhat spotted career as a violin expert....Johncosgrave (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Squeaks through as it is now, but can someone correct "a violin conniseur"! Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of the sources are old, but there's no expiry date on sources. Easily passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but condense heavily. Adding information isn't the issue, it's the presentation of information. like a lot of your articles, this is bogged down by intricate details, fanatic analysis and exegesis of primary sources, and undue personal editorial flourishes approaching original research (your interpretation of sources). Statements like "as can be seeing by searching on Amazon or similar sites." are clearly YOU drawing inferences and making statements that even if true are undue weight.  Statements posed as questions like  "Was the cello really by Gesù?" are not encyclopedic, they are just filler. Trim the fluff! If you want to write a popular or scholarly article with your own analysis, commentary and dynamic prose, start a blog, or send a manuscript to a journal, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Let the sources speak for themselves and determine due weight, no matter how great or interesting you think the subject (or a minute sub-subject) is. Stay on topic, be concise, and use in text attributions judiciously. Wikipedia is not Google. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no reason to delete this article. Yes it can be improved and cleaned up, but there is enough evidence to pass GNG and based on the collections he also passes NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2020 (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.