Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ve Elizabeth Cadie


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ve Elizabeth Cadie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability guideline. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some references and quotes to the article. I think there is more to be found, as a 1932 article said her "originality is causing quite a stir in art and industry", and a 1938 article described her as a "prominent designer". However, I'm in Australia, and the databases I have access to focus on Australia, so I hope someone with access to US sources can add more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a borderline case but the absence of a proper delete rationale and the provision of references by RebeccaGreen leans me towards keeping. I could flip to delete if the nom offers a properly argued rationale for deleting. FOARP (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep She was also an inventor with two patents to her name. (Reference added) --the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, now reflected by the well referenced article, a big well done! to the above editors:) ps. i want The Cat Whose Whiskers Slipped (1st ed. of course:)), it looks like a wonderful book:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, based on the numerous book publications. The patents are irrelevant, unless they had become widely distributed designs. Anyone can get a patent. I removed two overzealous sources (art.com and bonanza.com) that were actually just pages advertising one of her books for sale. Pages selling items on bonanza.com are not WP:RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:RS explicitly states "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times." Both of those pages were archives of past sales, and simply verify that she designed covers for the magazine. They do not contribute to notability, obviously, but there is no reason not to include them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, same reasons as above (especially now improved article, & likelihood of more sources emerging). One minor pt: according to WorldCat, at least 1 of the books Cadie illustrated was translated into Spanish & her illustrations were included. (Perhaps additional evidence of significant collective body of work as per WP:BIO?) Regarding her patents, I see that one was cited by patent examiners in a later application (maybe that's not meaningful). I do think more may turn up about her design work across fields given those patents, & that seems notable for an American woman working in the 1930s (the reason we have pages like List of inventions and discoveries by women, after all). MNmagistra (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is obviously goign to be a keep, but let's be real about the patents. The first patent issued to a female inventor was given to Mary_Dixon_Kies in 1809, and that is obviously notable for many reasons if you check the article. The subject of this article has two patents for an insulated coffee pot handle. Nobody is going to go down in history for having invented an insulated coffee pot handle, especially when Google patents shows 245,000 results related to patents on coffee pots.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OT but as a patent attorney I can tell you that there are many millions of patents in existence (the Derwent database holds 110 million applications, granted patents, formal notices and other documents), and that it is very common for them to be cited as prior art against subsequent applications. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep article; laud User:RebeccaGreen for WP:HEYMANN; WP:TROUT Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2018 (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.