Talk:Henrietta Dubrey

Untitled

I have now twice removed a section of text 'She is associated with the St Ives School of painters and sculptors. Dubrey has an interest in calligraphy and gesture-making, in common with Penwith artists of the 50s and 60s.'

This is nonsense. There is historically no St.Ives school of painters, and not a single publication or document to propose so. It is lazy categorization for an artist living near St Ives. Also, How is she interested in calligraphy? where in her work? Why more than anyone else? and what other artist in Penwith in the 50's and 60's are supposed to have worked with calligraphy particularly? This is such a shoddy statement.

Please do not simply revert to a previous edit and re include this guff as it makes everyone look bad if it passes for art fact.Anna Jones (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It was from a gallery website, so I totally agree with you removing the claim. it was the classic tactic of trying to make someone more notable by using a tenuous similarity. Sionk (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Q&A from Editor Assistance Noticeboard

Copied from EAR, FWIW here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Dubrey

I really believe this article is not justified and I can find no reliable independent source to build upon. This article lets down the standards of Wikipedia. I am an arts worker and not too skilled with WP editing so would like an administrator to review this page and make a decision towards its deletion as the steps are not clear to me. Thank you Anna Jones (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that a number of previous sources for that article have been removed by you and others because they are dead links. Please be aware that just because a link is not actively linked to an Internet source, or has been linked in the past but has "died", is no reason to remove it, see WP:KDL. Under the Verifiability policy, it is made very clear that reliable sources do not have to be available online. Though there is some question about whether some of those links, particularly the ones about the "St. Ives School" may be questionable, we here at Wikipedia go by what reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia say, not whether we agree with them or not. Now it may be that some of those sources are not, in fact, reliable or may not actually say what they're cited to say, but that's an issue which needs to be worked out source by source. If those sources are restored (to, more or less, this version), it would at least appear on first blush that the article would meet the criteria for inclusion and retention of biographical articles. Finally, while administrators have the ability to delete articles, you're not going to find one who is willing to do it merely for lack of notability unless you go through the proper deletion processes because they're going to want the input of the community, which those processes invite. Note that utilizing those processes is made much easier by installation of the Twinkle plug in from Your Preferences / Gadgets / Browsing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added back some of the cited information and published sources that have been recently removed. If anyone wants to take this to Articles for Deletion, then that's fine by me. But it's wrong to delete the article by stealth. And sources don't need to be online to be valid. Sionk (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)