Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Cowing

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Cowing[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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement - Currently sourced by a primary reference, an unreliable source, and two trivial mentions. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not much out there in terms of sourcing. The best thing I found sums up the fact that she was one of many: "Roberta Cowing , Agnes Merrill Chase , and Deborah G. Passmore were just several of the hundreds of trained women employed as botanical illustrators for The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Herbarium.", in American Garden Clubs and the Fight for Nature Preservation, 1890-1980, by Shana Miriam Cohen, 2005. --- Possibly ☎ 02:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if the fact those three women were called out specifically, though, indicates that they weren't simply one of hundreds. Perhaps they're named because they were the standouts. That's two books that specifically mention her, which would be unusual for someone who was simply doing her job. I've ordered the Cohen and the Norwood books from the library, will circle back when I get them. —valereee (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ai, jeez, and she's also often listed under her married name, including this mention which lists her incorrectly as Roberta Cowing Thrush, apparently an error made early and used throughout. This is always the problem with women. Their work is often listed at least two ways, often three (first maiden married) or four (first middle last). Introduce an error, too, and now you've got a real mess. But at any rate that's a third book that discusses her work. —valereee (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will also try searching using variants like Mrs. Ernest Throckmorton or Mrs. Ernest U. Throckmorton, or just plain Mrs. Throckmorton. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comment - Here's what I'm finding on this illustrator who worked in the specific niche of agricultural illustration: collection of the USDA [1]; collection of Carnegie Melon Botanical Library [2],[3]; the Johnson Collection[4],[5]; this book - Made From This Earth: American Women and Nature [6],[7] there are eight hits in this book (but snippet view is only letting me see three of these); Illustrations in various US dept. of agriculture government publications [8], [9], [10], [11] leads me to believe she was a known illustrator of her time. ~~Whether there has been enough written on her to pass the notability bar, I'm not sure, however the three collections may be a enough to pass.~~ I haven't yet tried to search under her married name, Roberta Cowing Throckmorton or Roberta Throckmorton. Perhaps other editors can find more. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my comment above to a K**P !vote, based on what was already found, and what other editors have added. Thank you everyone for your research, I will add the new content to the article (but not today). I now firmly believe she meets criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, great research. Regarding "three collections", I think NARTIST refers to several notable galleries or museum collections, because that means the work has been assessed by art curators. I don't think the USDA collection, nor the botanical library collection qualify, as they are collection primarily based on botany criteria and not artistic criteria. Also I asked myself when assessing the sources whether work done for a federal employer counts; I think it probably does, given something like Dorothea Lange's FSA work. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, Hi - yes I thought of that (lack of gallery & museum collections) as well, which is why I haven't !voted yet. She obviously didn't do the sort of illustration work galleries or museums would be interested in. What did interest me was that the USDA collection holds an original work of art (not a print), the Carnegie Mellon collection holds a drawing, (not sure what the Johnson Collection holds) which made me think that these institutions understood the historical value of the artwork and not just the imagery. Netherzone (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also don't know how to interpret the 'notable galleries or museum collections' criterion. I assumed, when I first read it, that this meant galleries like the National Gallery in the UK, or major museums, but I've seen it claimed of conventional sales galleries for several modern commercial artists (and I suppose if your work sells widely and multiple commercial galleries want to sell it, that counts for something!). I think we have to take this in the broad sense of "another independent professional relevant to the field" evaluated the artist as meaningful and wanted to put it somewhere. Scientific illustrators of Roberta Cowing's time did not expect their work to go into galleries, so they can't be judged that way. We have to look at whether the body of her work was thought of in some way as exceptional and worthy of personal preservation/record, independent of being a mere scientific record. I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of keeping records of these illustrators. Their period, their choice of subject and venue all mean they're likely to be under-represented in secondary sources in relation to their relevance, which is difficult. Their work frequently is regarded as exceptional and worthy of preservation, but because it's usually stuck in the archives of some academic organisation that isn't sure what to do with it, but is able to preserve it safely, it often won't end up in a national collection. I strongly suspect that a lot of this stuff would be transferred to a national collection if it weren't being preserved in academia. It is part of our heritage, and people like Cowing certainly shouldn't be forgotten. Elemimele (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just FYI, the "Johnson Collection" isn't an artistic collection, it's an index, and apparently does not hold any artwork. It simply is a catalogue of names and some essential details. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, but ensure that she and her colleagues' names are included appropriately in Pomological Watercolor Collection. The problem is that people aren't notable just for doing their job, and that's all that this article claims. If clear evidence that she had done something notable, above and beyond this daily work, could be provided the situation would be different, but contributing to a collection of pictures that you were hired to paint isn't enough on its own. RomanSpa (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Note that she was also the mother of Cleon Throckmorton. The worst case would be merger to Pomological Watercolor Collection but I'm not seeing any benefit in that. Our policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply while there is no sensible case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. There is a misconception that the many illustrators Possibly mentions were all a faceless mass of workers, there were a number of the illustrators that have been repeatedly highlighted due to the quality and quantity of their work, including Cowing. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gameliel and Netherzone -- early 20th century artists of note in Natural History are often well known in the field, but may not have a lot of easily discoverable sources on the web -- the current art history sources support her notability, Sadads (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of Era Bulletin's from the USDA that describe her work as important, for example this note, or this comment in "Artists of Washington DC 1796-1996" "COWING , ROBERTA Artist active in Washington , DC during the period 1887-1920 . She was an illustrator with the U.S. Department of Agriculture during those ..." which suggest notability well after her contemporaries . A successful woman artists, that is repeatedly mentioned again much later is way more notable than, for example, the many dozens of English notability we have on the wiki. Voluminous praise for women artists is rare during this period, even though they were well known. Sadads (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The swaying information for me is that at least three reputable institutions, that we currently know of, hold her original art works. I don't believe that the fact that she produced these original and collectable artworks while "doing her job" should be a factor in the decision to delete or keep this article. I agree with User:Elemimele scientific illustration at this time was unlikely to be put into commercial galleries for sale but her work has been judged worthy enough by professional curators in at least three separate institutions to be kept and preserved. Also at least two books mention her specifically and that she is mentioned "in the same breath" as the influential botanist Mary Agnes Chase and the talented scientific illustrator Deborah Griscom Passmore makes this article a most definite "keep" for me. As she undertook work for institutions and publications other than USDA, for example her scientific art was published in the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, I believe merely mentioning her in the Pomological Watercolor Collection is too restrictive. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ambrosia10 and others. A scientific illustrator makes an odd fit for NARTIST, but her work has been collected and catalogued by institutions most likely to be able to judge its worth. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional citations. I’ve been working on adding more info. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, so I appreciate everyone's help!Bbaue0104 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (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.