Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Bach

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 delete. Tone 09:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Bach[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)

Not notable per WP:ARTIST or as a business person. Extremely weak sourcing, mainly to trade magazines which are themselves a form of advertising. The creator has removed the PROD I added, together with some of the promotional language, all the unremarkable awards, and some of the weakest sources, which is nice, but I don't see that they have replaced the sources with anything better.[1] The exhibitions don't confer notability either, unless I'm missing something — I don't see any mention of Bach in any of the four sources offered in the "Exhibitions" section. Having an exhibit at the Smithsonion does of course sound impressive, but it turns out to mean a single piece, donated by the biographee. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nom, all I could find of note was this item in the Smithsonian natural history museum collection. The fact that the piece in the Smithsonian was donated isn't that significant, as it's a two-way street: museums do not accept donations of items they are not interested in. If they did, everyone would donate to them and their collections would be full of junk. In any case it is not enough. I saw no independent secondary coverage; all I could find was fluffy promotional copy. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - what does a contemporary jeweller have to do to be notable, I wonder? In this area "fluffy promotional copy" is about all there is - as with clothes designers. The Alumni magazine piece is long, & I think adequately independent. It also shows a pic of a shortish piece in People magazine. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I agree she is not entirely unknown. But there isn't enough coverage in my view. Regarding the alumni magazine, have you ever seen a profile in any alumni magazine that was negative? They are always fluffy and promotional. Alumni magazines exist to paint a beautiful picture of graduates, with the ultimate goal of soliciting donations to the school.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course alumni magazines, like most colour magazines, are nearly always positive, but in terms of notability there's the people they choose to cover, vesrus all they others they don't. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request: "Bach has been featured in multiple fashion magazines and museum exhibitions." Feature is a verb much loved by Wikipedia editors and, it has often seemed to me, almost devoid of meaning. If her work has been critically described in those fashion mags or displayed in museum collections, then I'd expect to see editorial/curatorial commentary summarized (and, where appropriate, quoted) within the article. Question (perhaps just idle curiosity): I'd lazily assumed that the creators of order-made jewelry both designed it and made it. She's described as (co-) designer and there seems to be no mention of the fabrication; are the designs implemented in some factory in China or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, the problem is that in this branch of the applied arts, there is no editorial or curatorial structure and its basically seen now as a wing of the fashion industry, hence the promo guff mentioned above. But that's not to say the creators or their work lack intrinsic merit, its just that is hard to judge relative value given the lack of informed, critical evaluation. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am also Leaning Keep, but still thinking, your question re fabrication is important. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Maybe you have already concluded this, but I don't think it's possible to assess this in terms of the typical art circuit (curators, exhibitions, critics), as she seems to have only had two exhibitions. One of the shows was a touring show that went to three museums. All in all, I would say she's a commercial jeweller who has had some minor/limited exposure in the art and culture world. That would account for the lack of critical commentary. You might also notice that the Smithsonian piece is not in the Art part of the institution, but rather in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Re: fabrication of the work by the artists, this isn't that important, methinks. Henry Moore's studio assistants produced much of his work, as is extremely common in contemporary art practice. And she is a craftsperson providing product to Neiman Marcus, so it makes sense that she would have some kind of production line going. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I'm not knocking her achievements; I just don't see evidence for these. I confess to not having read the alumni magazine profile: it's impossibly gushy. I'm happy to ignore the gush/guff; but are there no intelligent, palatable alternatives? -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For all I know, she may be highly noteworthy; but the only evidence so far offered for this has been PR stuff (yes, including the university alumni magazine). -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The available sources are promotional and not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Something that isn't simply advertising for her brand might be useful to demonstrate notability, if such a source exists.JohnmgKing (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhat regretfully. Re Hoary above - "I'm not knocking her achievements; I just don't see evidence for these.". Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2020 (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.