Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Johanson

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. As the debate has progressed, initial objections have been addressed and the early deleters have not returned to assert otherwise. Ty 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Johanson[edit]

Delete unsourced bio about nn artist fails WP:BIO, being a student of notables doesn't make one notable. Note: her husband is up for deletion down below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To help assess Johanson's notability or lack thereof I've added one published source (a news obituary) and some additional information about Johanson's public pieces and career to the article. I'll be checking to see if she's listed in Who's Who in American Art over the weekend. Xine11 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think there's something here. Her papers are held in the University of Washington Libraries [1] (they have a portrait as well: [2]). I'll hold my !vote though until I see what Xine11 can come up with over the weekend.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few more sources mentioning her, including one book calling her "among the foremost in the use of sandcast pebble mosaics". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources revealing much detail are thin on the ground, but that's to be expected for an artist of this period. Although the verifiable facts are presently sketchy, the whole picture rings true to me. A similar, admittedly minor, artist working today would have a number of online newspaper reviews, exhibition notices etc enough to fully meet WP:BIO. I'm willing to err on the side of inclusion in the hope that Xine11 can do a bit of old-fashioned library research to add to the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per mural and links. - Modernist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (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.