Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/William Jesse Ramey

Fish decoys are no more "fringe" than any other form of wood carvings, however I would think that displays of fish decoys in the Smithsonian, Museum of American Folk Art, and Brooklyn Museum (not to mention a host of other smaller museums like the Cleveland Art, the Milwaukee Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Fine Arts, Michigan State University Museum, etc. . . .)  are more than sufficient to show that fish decoys ARE an appreciated form of ART!

I'm told that Jesse Ramey's work exists in the Smithsonian, Brooklyn and exhibited in the Museum of Folk art although I haven't been able to track down documentation to prove it. (therefore this information is not included in the article).

His work has been exhibited in other museums, And there is documentation in multiple sources to show he was influential to probably the most famous of all fish decoy carvers and numerous generations of decoy carvers who have followed.

I didn't think quantity of output was a requirement for someone to be influential or important.

(however I would like to point out that there are a number of folk artists listed here in Wikipedia with much less credentials and documented notability - such as Lillian Colton, Jaime Crespo, Justus DaLee, Sam Doyle, Chris Flesher, Edgar Tolson, Marian Ulc, Mary Ann Willson, etc.....)

I've never carved a decoy, but I'm part of a growing group of collectors who feel that this area of art has been highly overlooked by the masses - and hoped that my series articles in Wikipedia would help correct this.

"I want to thank you for correcting this oversight on Wikipedia. It was long overdue."

My intention was to include articles on as many Master Carvers as I could get sufficient information on. (note I've already published the Oscar W Peterson article). Obviously, I am having difficulty is proving to the moderators the importance of the first few Master Carvers - so it's taking be a bit longer than expected to get to the others.

I guess I'm not really understanding what you consider as necessary to show an artist as notable (if artworks in museums and documented influence to future generations is not enough).

Thanks (and slightly frustated) Birdfarmer (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See Notability (people). The most applicable possibilities there are "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Its easy to show notability if there are several books on the field, published by respected publishers, which have more than a passing reference to the artist or if there have been magazine and newspaper articles about the artist, then "Keep" is the likely outcome of AFD. What do the references say about the artist and his work in this case? Is it a mention or "significant coverage," like a paragraph, a page, or a chapter? Where is documentation of exhibitions? My view at this point is a "Weak Keep" since we don't know the nature and extent of coverage. Edison (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)