Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Toogood

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. (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Toogood

[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)

No evidence of notability. All sources except one include interviews with the subject which casts doubt on their independence. Promotional in tone. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and England. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe interview segments truly cast doubt on the independence of The New York Times, CNN, Financial Times, The Globe and Mail, Architectural Digest, Wallpaper*, and the like. To me, if that many renowned publications want to interview someone, the chances are that they may indeed be notable than not. SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. I agree. PaulPachad (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A WP:BEFORE search shows many hits that support WP:GNG, Google Book search reveals a monograph on her work published by Phaidon Press: Faye Toogood: Drawing, Material, Sculpture, Landscape[1], and is in these books: Woman Made: Great Women Designers[2], Atlas of Interior Design[3] A Modern Way to Live: 5 Design Principles from The Modern House [4], Life Meets Art Inside the Homes of the World's Most Creative People, [5], The Modern House [6], By Design: The World's Best Contemporary Interior Designers [7]. She also meets WP:NARTIST as her work is included in the collections of several notable museums, Philadelphia Museum of Art[8], the High Museum of Art,[9], Corning Museum of Glass,[10], the National Gallery of Victoria, Melborne[11], Dallas Museum of Art,[12], the RISD Museum,[13], the Denver Museum of Art,[14]. Additionally she has exhibited her work at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the and many other notable museums. Obviously the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Netherzone:'s WP:HEY effort to add these RS to the article, which clearly establish GNG and NARTIST on several vectors. Well done. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can see enough reliable sources to be here. Owlf 📪 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added birth year with citation. clarified 2020 show. Added VIAF data to wikidata and linked. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the good reasons mentioned above, has a clear pass at criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST CT55555 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented and clear pass of WP:ARTIST via inclusion of works in permanent collections. I also tend to agree that merely including interview elements does not invalidate a source that's published somewhere respectable, ie not known for writing articles for money. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too can see mentions in books but what I cannot see is what those books say. In my before search I was unable, and remain unable, to see any independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject. Until and unless someone can provide abstracts from these sources that demonstrate that they meet the needs of WP:GNG, I will remain of the view that notability has not been met. Any interviews are very rarely going to be independent, and the refs given certainly are not. There was no suggestion by me that either the subject or the journalist had been paid - that isn't the issue. The issue is that an interview is rarely independent - it doesn't usually present both sides of an argument unless it is a grilling of a politician which these refs certainly are not. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Velella, she meets WP:NARTIST by way of the collections in several notable museums. She also meets WP:GNG as there is a monograph book solely about her from Phaidon Press, a top-notch publisher of art & design books - that is considered significant coverage per WP:N aside from her inclusion in other books. Phaidon does not publish junk. There is a lot of material online about her (in addition to sources that are not online) for example, a review of her work in Pin-up Magazine HERE, five articles in Denzeen HERE, Gallerie Magazine calls her a "British superstar artist, designer" in this article HERE, and more. It's perplexing that you are not seeing these items in your BEFORE, perhaps we are "googling" from different geographic locations which might have a impact on what you are able to find. Here in the US, I'm finding tons of material. Netherzone (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see many citations with a simple google news search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Faye+Toogood%22&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&biw=1920&bih=929&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ56pRpCDdNe53ATMj4CXfUhkvUoA%3A1653619251469&ei=MzqQYrybHJThwbkPwfS14AY&ved=0ahUKEwj8gM_g0_73AhWUcDABHUF6DWwQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Faye+Toogood%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIECAAQQzIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQ1DCBVjuF2CMHGgAcAB4AIABa4gBtgKSAQMxLjKYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-news I think it passes WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for User:Velella it seems like a WP:SNOWBALL keep situation here, suggesting you withdraw the AfD nomination. CT55555 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 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.