Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrea Pettit


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Myrea Pettit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG: Unable to verify independent, reliable sources offering more than a trivial mention. Worldcat alone obviously doesn't establish notability. — swpb T 13:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * comment She's actually somewhat well-known for her fairy art, but I can't find RS coverage actually about her - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep though it's a bit in a gray area, I found the following, not great, but not completely trivial either. We do have to acknowledge that people who do this type of genre-focused art will not have coverage in the New York TImes, even if they are fairly well-recognized within their genre.   Montanabw (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources located:
 * http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Myrea+Pettit
 * https://books.google.com/books/about/500_Fairy_Motifs.html?id=84I5h-tdbBsC&hl=en
 * http://www.northampton.towntalk.co.uk/local/famous-people/d/728/myrea-pettit/
 * http://www.ovguide.com/myrea-pettit-9202a8c04000641f8000000000750d8a
 * http://wisewomanmentor.com/art-gallery/3214334
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Myrea-Pettit
 * http://www.faemagazine.com/myrea-pettit-on-antony-gormleys-fourth-plinth/
 * http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/32145446

— swpb T 20:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As usual, most of Montana's signature blind dump of what must be every google hit can be immediately dismissed from consideration as any sort of indicator of notability:
 * http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Myrea+Pettit and https://books.google.com/books/about/500_Fairy_Motifs.html?id=84I5h-tdbBsC&hl=en Not independent.
 * http://www.northampton.towntalk.co.uk/local/famous-people/d/728/myrea-pettit/ Local coverage without byline—potentially valid if authorship can be established, but even then, not enough on its own.
 * http://www.ovguide.com/myrea-pettit-9202a8c04000641f8000000000750d8a Utterly trivial. Subject is mentioned–barely–as one of 12 artists in someone's calendar.
 * http://wisewomanmentor.com/art-gallery/3214334 I can't even access this site, because it's being blocked by my spam filter. That can't be a good sign.
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Myrea-Pettit There is literally nothing there.
 * http://www.faemagazine.com/myrea-pettit-on-antony-gormleys-fourth-plinth/ No evidence to be found of reliability for this site.
 * Comment: Why is it so difficult to just say, "here is my assessment of the sources presented" without adding the personal attack language?  This was far from a "signature blind dump of what must be every google hit" (If it was, you'd see facebook and instagram...), it's a presentation of what I could find that is potentially useful to establish notability.  Even I think this one is not the hill to die on, but I think it's important to give the article a fair look and not just dismiss it because of its subject content.   Montanabw (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to challenge the idea that this was a "blind" dump? The alternative, that you examined each page, saw (or failed to see) that it was invalid, and still posted it, is far more damning. Supposing that you were merely lazy is the best case scenario. — swpb T 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Try this, swpb: "I looked at the pages, I filtered out what was obvious cruft, and what is left I thought provided some potential indicia of notability and have presented them here for the community to decide. Genre artists aren't going to be covered in the New York Times and I read WP:N as saying we have a presumption of notability in the gray areas, and fairy artists, are, unquestionably, in a genre and a gray area.  But I am trying to put my preconceptions aside and look at the issue objectively.  Even you note the Northampton one is potentially OK, we all know many press releases do not have authors and are still legitimate sources, and unless you can assert the faemagazine is not independent, that's two, even if you think it's .  If your spam filter is blocking sites like wisewomanmentor, hm, that's a potential problem, but I can load it and it appears to be powered by http://www.wildapricot.com, which looks like a Canadian site that provides cloud services for nonprofit groups; sometimes these smaller web sites do get blacklisted for a while if they generate a lot of unexpected traffic, but it looks like it's not a spam site to me.  I see three potentially decent sources plus some additional mentions and pretty significant business being generated.  To me that all leads up to "weak keep."  This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, but I am getting quite sick of being personally attacked for making a sincere attempt to see if there is some potential indicia of notability.   Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Full points for effort, but if multiple people have said that your estimation of notability is off - as they have - this may not in fact be each of them personally attacking you, but instead it might be that your estimation of notability is off - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough with my "win percentage", if that's what you are talking about (77.5% of the time I either vote with the majority or there is no consensus).  Sometimes the guidelines themselves are the problem and my consistent participation and commenting on repeating issues is, slowly, changing some things for the better and generating useful debate on others (there is a good discussion about beauty pageant articles, for example).  I get a few wrong, and I can live with that, a few other things I just don't comment on because I've decided they aren't worth the fight, but the point is that civility matters.  It is also important to not only address the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia, which is huge but also we need to address what one user referred to as "editor bias" —the "I've never heard of it or I think it's stupid, so it's not notable" problem.  Bottom line? The people who personally attack me for my assessments and in doing so get so livid and spittle-frothing-angry that they cross the line of civility have no credibility with me. I treat their remarks as the temper tantrums that they are.  Stay civil, and I'll win a few and I lose a few.  But I'm often enough in the right to keep plugging away at it.   Montanabw (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that what I mostly see is you claiming negative assessments of your provided sources are personal attacks, the spittle appears to be flying in the other direction - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, using personalized language like "blind dump" and "lazy" is a personal attack. Anyone can critique the sources without getting personal about it.   Montanabw (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an easy way to avoid increasingly strong criticism from an increasing number of directions—stop doing what you've been told over and over again is unacceptable. — swpb T 20:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I appreciate montanabw's source listings. Also, I find swpb's easy dismissal of worldcat results to be very strange.   Th e S te ve   19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Worldcat lists essentially every book ever published—you know that, right? A listing in Worldcat has never been considered evidence of notability, by anyone. The flaws with the rest of Montana's sources are thoroughly documented; what's strange is how you could see fit to defend any of it at all. — swpb T 13:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not even close. Worldcat only lists books held by libraries.  As in, bought and curated by librarians.  As in, considered worthwhile reading by libraries.  Its a small fraction of all books published.  You didn't know that, obviously. As to your other point, see here...   Th e S te ve   07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% wrong. The Library of Congress, just for one, holds or catalogs, exactly as I said, "essentially every book ever published". Not some small fraction, but nearly every single modern one. That's supposed to support a case for GNG? Give us all a break. BTW, I'm traveling this weekend, so it's unlikely I'll be able to see or respond to anything else here. Luckily, there's no reason to worry about which way this AfD is going. — swpb T 13:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "the Library does not retain all of these works..." ..."the Library of Congress retains copies of every publication in the English language that is deemed significant" (emphasis mine).  The LoC rejects 1 of every 5 items that are submitted to it, and those are mostly US publications.  That means it only holds 80% of things sent to it  Plenty of books published in the US never receive an LCC.  Even if we're generous and assume that the LoC holds 66% of all works published in the US, their foreign holdings are far smaller, percentage-wise.  I seriously doubt they hold even 20% of all books published in any given year.  And again, Worldcat only shows holdings, not everything given an LCC.   Th e S te ve   06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's put the goal posts back where they belong—you can't say with a straight face that world cat is enough to meet GNG, because it isn't, by 1000 miles. — swpb T 01:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in this case. However, DGG (a librarian) has used worldcat holdings as his AFD reasoning many times, and I generally agree with his analyses, both keep and delete.  Ergo, my confusion over your dismissal of those results.  Worldcat results should be seriously considered, even if you aren't using them as your sole measurement.   Th e S te ve   00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're using DGG as your AfD guide? I think I found the heart of the problem. — swpb T 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pond Fairy at Chapeltoun.JPG
 * OK people, no more snarkiness. Let it rest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Her work has not been the subject of any kind of critical analysis. As far as I can tell, there simply is no material in reliable sources to base a biography on. Mduvekot (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes WP:GNG and has made substantial coverage. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — swpb T 13:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DEL7 (although a weak one). I looked through a bunch of databases but was unable to find coverage in reliable sources. While the subject has created some really nice fairy art, it is hard to find what is the impact - any awards/museum collections. Because of the paucity of information in reliable secondary sources, I am going for a delete. Per WP:WHYN there is simply not enough information available on which to base an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability - fails WP:GNG, and I can't see that any alternative basis for notability applies. Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2016 (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.