Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Webb Dreyer


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Webb Dreyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG states: "Substantial Coverage" - Not:  a phrase PeterWesco (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ARTIST - Fails
 * WP:GNG - Fails.   Refs given are from local newspapers, most upon her death.  One written by her husband.    External links should be reviewed closely.  The AskArt link is populated with information by her son.   The smithsonian link is merely information provided by her son.   The TSHA link was generated with information provided from her husbands "oral history".
 * Delete there is not extensive coverage that is independent in nature. Coverage via her husband does not qualify. Gigs (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This person is discussed in numerous third party sources (example) as a notable artist and member of the art world. groupuscule (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * comment As was stated above, the source you list is a recap of the biography her husband (Martin Dreyer) wrote as is clearly listed at the bottom of the link you posted.  You need to really study what defines notability and I would also check out:  WP:Wikihounding.   Our disagreement on Paul Pojman should not bleed to other areas of Wikipedia. PeterWesco (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unless the nominator has more information than the rest of us about the sources of this article and their relationships to one another, he seems possibly over-dismissive of at least some of them. For instance, the Houston Chronicle, according to our article on it, is (or was as of 2008) "the largest daily newspaper in Texas" and "the ninth-largest newspaper by circulation in the United States" - rather more than just a local newspaper, though we might still need to consider potential local bias. Judging by its bibliography, the TSHA entry on the subject (mentioned both by the nominator and by Groupuscule above) uses the article by the subject's husband as just one of four sources. Several of the "books and periodicals" listed are effectively not local sources but national or even international biographical dictionaries - I am not sure which, if any, should be regarded as reliable, but is the nominator declaring them all unreliable? And turning to the external links, the AskArt link attributes some, not all, of its information about the subject to the subject's son (andmittedly, it doesn't seem to state where it got the rest from). Finally - the Smithsonian got the papers it holds by and about the subject from the subject's son. So what? Archival holdings about people, whether at the Smithsonian or elsewhere, usually have been donated by the person concerned or a relative. The Smithsonian holds such papers because they are likely to be useful resources to researchers capable of producing what we would regard as reliable sources (and of interest to any of our readers with an interest in seeing what such resources are available), and by implication because it regards Margaret Webb Dreyer, at the very least, as a person with a significant chance of being notable. We don't need to agree with the Smithsonian, but we should at least look at the evidence more carefully. PWilkinson (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The smithsonian has an archive on her. If its good enough for them to preserve her works I think it belongs on Wikipedia guePortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Dismissing publications such as the Houston Chronicle and Houston Post as "local newspapers" is ridiculous. The USA has almost no national newspapers, so essentially all US newspapers including the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, are "local" if you use that definition. The Houston metro area has a bigger population than Austria or Norway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Where are the Houston Chronicle and Houston Post used as references?  There is 1 reference to Houston Chronicle listed in references and the local newspapers I was referring to where not the Chronicle and Post I was referring to these which are in "REFERENCES": Houston Breakthrough and Houston Scene.   Under "bibliography" Houston Chronicle and Post are listed...  Have you had a chance to review them?  Please describe the depth of reporting.   Have you reviewed this article from the bibliography and does it meet WP:GNG? PeterWesco (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this article (along with another that has ended) is up for AfD because of WP:COI issues.  As I stated in the AfD, review all of the sources closely and all of the information presented. It would appear you jumped on "local newspapers" and it was over. PeterWesco (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * STRONGEST KEEP - Assuming good faith, I guess the nominator simply missed all of the subject's contributions to history. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also assuming good faith.  Sue Rangell is about as fair as it gets.  If she thinks I am incorrect (and the others) - I yield my vote and accept the subject of the article meets WP:GNG PeterWesco (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow... PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the fact that she has had major exhibitions, and her works seem to have been much written about. The only problem I see is that it seems to have been created by someone with a potential conflict of interest. Some of the biographical details could do with better sourcing, but there doesn't seem to be anything too problematic in the tone or other content..  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 03:54, 4 January 2013 (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.