Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Furst

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Furst

[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)

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. A google search comes up with a reference to one image of her a contact sheet in the National Portrait Gallery. Not enough to establish notability. I cannot find any references to verify the biographical information. Additionally the article's creator and primary editor appears to be the subject herself, a violation of COI. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, slightly to my surprise. I do agree that it is not great that the subject herself has written most of this article, and a number of points require better sourcing or should be removed. But she has mainly worked as an illustrator, which may go some way to explaining why galleries have overlooked her. and her most notable art is the Lord of the Rings cover and her Virago/Women’s Press book covers, and those are really notable for anyone who has spent any time in British bookshops. (This is one of the problems with the article, which emphasises her more recent work inspired by Haeckel.) Nwhyte (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several of her prints are in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum.[1] Netherzone (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She also has ten prints in the Wellcome Collection (a notable museum and library) [2]. I'm leaning towards k**p, since both collections contribute to notability and would meet NARTIST criteria 4, but I will continue to see what else might turn up in searches. The work in the National Portrait Gallery does not count towards notability because it's the work of another artist and she was simply a "sitter" for their work. If kept the article should be pruned of unsourced content and any COI material since it's an autobiography. Netherzone (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I am able to find only one reference to her art work for Virago classics. Is this reliable? If I remove all the unsourced information and add the citations y'all have recommend she has prints in the V&A, the Wllcome collection, 1 book cover, 1 illustration for a record cover off Discogs. Pruning unsourced content and COI material will mean no date of birth or education, no genealogical or curatorial info., no exhibits. It still is very weak. I still don't see how to turn this into an article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates that is not a reliable source, it is a book selling site, and Discogs isn't a RS per WP:RSP because it is user generated content. I agree with you that when it's trimmed back there will be very little sourced content (which is why I haven't yet !voted). Netherzone (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: more book covers, from ISFDB; Encyclopedia citation for the one you already had; Wikipedia article for the Bo Hansson cover (or are we allowed to cite Wikipedia?); activism at the Royal College of Art; do we really need specific sourcing for DoB? If so, we'll be trimming that from a lot more articles than this one... Nwhyte (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwhyte hello! FYI, I can see the encyclopedia of SciFi entry, but two of the links you provided do not mention her at all , in fact they are blank on my screen - and Wikipedia does not use itself as a reliable source. We do need sourcing for biographic info, and we need sources that talk ABOUT the person, for example, art reviews or articles or books about her work. Sources that just mention her name or are an image credit are not considered in-depth significant coverage - see WP:SIGCOV, and WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:GNG for more information. I'm pretty sure the article will be retained, and as stated above, she does meet the WP:SNG for artists, but not WP:GNG which is fine. - I'm saying this not to challenge you but rather to share info on how WP:BLPs are analyzed here (apologies for all the shortcut acronyms!). -- On a related note to all in this discussion, there was a discussion a few years ago about whether there should be a separate SNG for designers/illustrators, since they don't normally have the same sort of exhibition record or public works as "fine" artists (but they do have awards for their work) - the convo did not come to any conclusions at the time, but maybe it's time to pick up that discussion again. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the Victoria and Albert and the Wellcome collection are both very high profile; having prints in the collections of both is sufficient to establish notability. I'm not commenting on the state of the article, which may need heavy trimming. Elemimele (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and WP:Shadow of Keep (an essay I've thought of writing). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the rationale provided in a Keep !vote is an essay that doesn't exist, the closer of this AfD ought to ignore it. Vexations (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice "Keep per discussion"? And no closer should ever take any comment or !vote based solely or even partially on an essay which exists into final consideration (except for mine, which I'll start to write soon because of your comment, watch for it in theaters), things like WP:TNT, WP:FANCRUFT and others are just different ways of saying "I don't like it." Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. It's a textbook example of WP:EVERYONEELSE. Vexations (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVERYONEELSE is an essay. "Keep per discussion" is a seconding of all the Keep reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cited an essay as a rationale. Surely an essay that exists and has been linked to 76,535 times is is better than one that doesn't exist. Vexations (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should be reduced to a stub. While her work is in two collections, almost all of the article is unsourced, and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see how an article could be sustained by the sources that have been found so far; there is almost nothing that we could say about her. I found one mention in The Times from 1970^[1] that says: "Jane Furst has designed a collection of fabric pictures with surrealistic designs, derived from anatomical drawings, insects and various forms of crustacea". There is also a brief mention in an article about her husband, Anton Furst. [3], but almost nothing that actually discusses her work. As far as I an tell, nobody is talking about her work.

References

^ Gelson, Hilary. "Design Report." Times, 18 June 1970, p. 13. The Times Digital Archive, link-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CS218329810/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=cd1f89d6. Accessed 28 Dec. 2021.

Vexations (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, works in the permanent collection of several (ie. two or more) notable galleries or museums. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that the vast majority of the unsourced content and self-promotion has been removed, I think it's fine to keep this as a short stub. If sources become available in the future, they could be added to improve the stub. She does meet WP:ARTIST, as her work is included in two notable collections which can be verified. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for researching and editing. Best. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2022 (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.

[1] Gelson, Hilary. "Design Report." Times, 18 June 1970, p. 13. The Times Digital Archive, link-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CS218329810/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=cd1f89d6. Accessed 28 Dec. 2021.

[1]