Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jesse Ramey


 * 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. lifebaka++ 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

William Jesse Ramey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page on a carver of fish decoys, written by a person with a close connection to the subject (apparently the great-grandson). Partly WP:OR ('Information obtained...from personal conversations with Gary Miller"). The article states that "Ramey primarily carved decoys for himself and some friends. His output was very limited and therefore his pieces are considered fairly rare, even in highly used condition." No Google hits that I can find and apart from two fleeting mentions in a book and unsubstantiated mentions in what seem to be auction catalogues, apparently no third-party coverage. In essence, the fringe nature of the subject matter, plus the fact that he had so little output. plus WP:COI, plus WP:OR, plus WP:V tip it over the edge. Travelbird (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The fish decoys are not "fringe." The New York Times article about them shows this clearly. They are a respectable form of folk art, written about in books. exhibited in museums, and sold at art auctions. Ramey's work is apparently written up in books on fish lures by Kimball. Kimball's book in turn is covered by the New York Times, showing that it is an independent and reliable source. Other print sources, not available online, are listed in the article, and should be examined to determine the extent and nature of coverage of Ramey. If someone close to Ramey wrote the article, that is not a reason for deletion if Ramey's work has adequate attestations of notability, which seems to be the thing to discuss here. Exactly how extensive is the coverage of Ramey in the Kimball books? Are his museum exhibits significant? How many works of art someone produced is an irrelevant factor with respect to notability. The question of the existence of multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, as well as museum exhibits, seems more relevant. Edison (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm a bit concerned that you are taking the fact that Kimball is notable and that he mentioned Ramey to automatically conclude that the latter is notable also. This is however not necessarily the case.
 * I had a talk with the author about my concerns 10 days ago on the page's talk page and nothing much to establish notability has been added. At this point I think there probably just isn't enough.
 * If reliable third party sources that show that this person has received widespread, in-depth coverage are added I have no problem with the page. However if a person creates art primarily for himself (as stated in the article) then we really need substantial coverage to show notability. He could theoretically be notable for even just one work, but there are so many red flags going up here, that I cannot just assume notability on good faith alone. Travelbird (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not claim that notability is inherited from being in a book by a notable author. I just pointed out that the Kimball book is not some self-published and unnoted fanwank, which would not amount to a reliable source. Thus if it has significant coverage (I do not know the extent of the coverage) that would be one of the "multiple" such instances needed for notability. Have you actually read the coverage in Kimball, to support your claim it is only a "mention?" It is inappropriate to make such a claim in absence of actual knowledge. I agree the burden is on the article's supporters to demonstrate the satisfaction of notability. It seems likely they have access to the print references, so more input is desirable from them. Also, the notability guideline calls only for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," not the higher standard of "widespread, in-depth coverage" which you state above, which would probably require the deletion of a large fraction of the articles presently "Kept" in AFD.  Edison (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Author's Response:You site the fact that the person created the pieces primarily for himself as part of your logic for lack of notability - however when these pieces were created they were not considered art. Fish decoys prior to the 1980s were primarily a method to feed one's family during the winters in New York and the Great Lake states.  The most highly sought after pieces are from the Depression era or before.
 * The fact that a couple of pieces from a carver of that era were kept in good condition (rather than of being fished and stabbed with spears), is a testament to their artistic merit. Very few carvers prior to 1980 imagined carving for commercial usage (selling to other fishermen).  Non-fishermen collectors simply didn't exist before the 1980s.
 * As I've responded, and shown in the article, his works are highly collectible to those who purchase fish decoys. They are shown in museums and have influenced several generations of carvers since his death.  His pieces are in 3 separate books by the Kimballs (along with a bio in the first one).  They are also in Steven Michaan's book titled American Fish Decoys (who provided many of the pieces for the American Museum of Folk Art's 1990 exhibit.) If those criteria are not enough to establish notability in the field - I'm not sure what would suffice for ANY carver of fish decoys.  Based upon this argument - I would suggest that the bios of appx 75% of the Folk Artists on Wikipedia need to be reexamined in this light since not everyone would consider as notable the artists who carve wood birds, or crop art, or paint/sculpt outsider art or Gullah art, etc....  Birdfarmer (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I know this must be frustrating. However we on Wikipedia must insist that all information added here in verifiable. Even if I personally believe you that his work is great and that he influenced lots of other people - that is not enough. You need to demonstrate this by reliable third-party sources, e.g. books on fish decoys that talk extensively on him. If so little has been written on the subject then this is going to be hard and the article will most likely fail our verifiability standards.
 * Could you elaborate on how extensively he is covered in the book by Steven Michaan ? How much of the book is devoted to him. Is it a line, a paragraph, a chapter... ? And it would also be helpful if you could provide quotes from the book showing his notability.
 * Frustrating is hardly the word. I had a number of quotes in the article from Steven Michaan's book about how Jesse Ramey influenced Oscar Peterson and was definitely one (along with Oscar) of the founders of the Cadillac Style - but I was asked to remove them because I was told I had too many quotes and should use references instead.  I'm afraid that might have contributed to the OR complaint (which I will re-examine).  The majority of Fish Decoy books are little more than "pretty picture books".  They contain short bios (usually less than 1/2 of a page) and a number of pictures to help collectors identify characteristics of a given carver when/if they come upon one in person.  Michaan's book has 208 pages - 21 carvers (and a few unknowns).  Only 4 carvers have more pictures than Jesse Ramey - and I was planning on writing articles on 3 of them.  (Oscar W Peterson is already up.  Was working on Hans Janner and Tom Schroeder).  The Kimball books are similar - pictures with Bios although each book covers hundreds of carvers.  The fact that Ramey is included in all 3 books is a bit unusual - only a few carvers got this distinction. I appreciate all of your help in trying to get this through my "thick head" of what you mean by notability and I agree that it is made more difficult by the few number of documented second and third party sources concerning fish decoys in general.- - I would suspect this is the case in almost all Folk Art genres.  Thanks again for all of your help Birdfarmer (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the verifiability concerns, all information that you researched yourself,e .g. by interviews cannot be accepted as per our WP:OR policy. This is not an attack on your credibility, but as we have no way of verifying the identity and credentials of editors here on Wikipedia we cannot accept original research as a matter of principle. Travelbird (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that if the article is kept the O.R. should go. If a subject is notable on the basis of independent and reliable sources, then sometimes information from a subject's own website (not likely in this case) or from less independent sources (self-published material from the individual, information provided by an individual to Who's Who, someone's own biographical writeup ) has been added to flesh out the coverage. But such material does not contribute to notability:  its use is governed by verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Edison (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Obscure subject but references do exist. Obviously OR has to go.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not whether references exits, but whether they show notability. Travelbird (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable enough for his work to be exhibited in specialist museums and to be presented in publications as examples from a notable artisan.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - assuming that the reference books can be verified, there is sufficient coverage. ukexpat (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2011 (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.