Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary R. Bassett

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary R. Bassett[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of WP:SIGCOV, just credits in various books with no detail about her, and a listing on the copyright directory. Keep per new sources found by RebeccaGreen FOARP (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I have added some other titles, and some quotes from reviews of the books. I would have to say, though, that although they are from multiple independent reliable sources, she is not the primary subject of the reviews, so they don't count towards WP:ARTIST. A pity, but unless/until some other works publish more information about her, or another editor is aware of such sources offline, she does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the included sources establish coverage in multiple sources. Coupled with the numerous plublicatons, I'll say she just makes it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I'm wondering if this needs actual library research. It seems like she's likely notable, perhaps is mentioned in books about American illustrators, but it might take some time to find. Is the author interested in draftifying? valereee (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My thinking is similar to that of Valereee. There is enough evidence currently in the article to suggest that there would be still further sources, hard to access because of their age, which would more conclusively establish notability. I acknowledge this is a bit speculative but this article is not promotional, does not present BLP issues, and so I err on the side of inclusion given the current evidence of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN KEEP, Kudos to RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl for improving sources, but why Nom borught a 20th century illustrator to AfD without a proper WP:BEFORE I cannot fathom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Given several of the notable sources are behind full paywalls, a proper WP:BEFORE as your thinking would not have been possible for me, though I did try to the best of my ability. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: In that case there's a good reason to consider if WP:NEXIST applies - you don't have to have the references to hand yourself, just know that they exist. AfD should always be a last option. Finally, @TeriEmbrey: is exactly the kind of editor who we should be encouraging to contribute more to the project, as they appear to be in a position to obtain hard-to-get sources and have detail knowledge of those sources. If you spent your time to start six articles, and had them nominated for deletion in rapid succession with little explanation, would this encourage you to engage further with the project?

I think a good next step for you would be to consider whether to withdraw some or all of the AfD nominations given the sourcing that has been found, particularly by RebeccaGreen and Megalibrarygirl who have done excellent work here. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely willing to go over the sourcing as I get access to review all these new pay-walled sources. I would have been willing to engage Teri, but the last time I did, they blanked the thread on their talkpage, so I didn't have much of an option to communicate, just a WP:OWN with them being part of the GLAM program, with seemingly no improvement over a month. So I find it particularly hard to encourage someone in that circumstance. And yes, I've now learned that news articles could be of great benefit and is why I have requested access to newspapers.com. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Now changing my vote to Keep, based on the additional sources found and included by other editors. Collaborative editing is great! RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.