Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Gillon

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Gillon[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)

There are refs given - but no page number and wasn't able to verify. Seems to be promotional; no Portuguese equivalent. See,s to have had success, but I've not seen anything that establishes it meets the threshold for WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Probably my fave source so far is this, a Brazilian cultural encyclopedia. The reference to the São Paulo Art Biennial in the ref list checks out, but is remarkably thin: he's cited just on page 426 of the PDF as a set/production designer on A visita da velha senhora (a play). His work has been sold at auction many times, and I've been able to find a number of galleries that discuss Gillon – which I'd consider reasonably reliable sources, at least for basic biographical info (though would happily be corrected by participants in WP:ART, if they disagree). Downside: all sources are in Portuguese or French (or obviously machine-translated English), and none cite their own sources. I have basic competence in both and would be happy to translate to the extent I can, if others think these qualify as legitimate sources of info. (PS: for your amusement, see this ad in a 1963 local newspaper, for Gillon's Jangada armchair.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:AleatoryPonderings, thanks for taking the time to look at this. It's hard to tell, but those sources may well be helpful and we certainly don't want to discount anything because it's not in English. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Of course. I may have some time soon to incorporate some of that material into the article, so will see if my opinion changes re: reliability as I look more closely at the sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Update: I did the best I could, but there's not much left. I would like to get my hands on Cadeiras brasileiras and Mobiliário residencial brasileiro, the two sources mentioned in the bibliography, but they don't appear to be online. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more sources and have added them to the article. Seems Gillon is pretty much exclusively known for the Jangada chair, mentions of which crop up in a number of design publications. Would note in particular that a retrospective was held (in Portuguese, but headline is pretty clear nonetheless) was held on him in 2015. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Took a swing at it myself, but likewise I'm seeing nothing but casual mentions and namedrops, none of which meet the bar of the GNG. Nor is the GNG satisfied by a flurry of non-qualifying references; as far as the guideline is concerned, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0. No prejudice against recreation for someone who has done the work to produce reliable sources with significant coverage, but considerable prejudice against keeping the article around just on the off chance some appear. This article has already been sitting around for eleven years without good references. That's way too far enough. Ravenswing 13:39, 25 July 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.