Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suz Andreasen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suz Andreasen

Suz Andreasen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tagged for speedy deletion but not unambiguous. Sources seem weak and trivial (see article's Talk), author has an apparent conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete References do not establish notability though they may for her parents. Because of the apparent conflict of interest we clearly need reliable sources justifying notability. Akihabara 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Based on conversations with the article's creator, this person sounds like they are notable, or at least it's a good possibility, and the guy is only just learning about Wikipedia at all, but the article was sent to AfD within 7 hours of its creation. Here are some sources I dug up after a quick google search: [1], she's written 2 books, including Dreaming the Future, reviewed by USA Today, and a couple online sources, not to mention her jewelry designs being profiled in the two books mentioned in the article. And there are a lot more hits out there, and surely the author knows about more. If this doesn't convince you she's notable, at least I hope it convinces you we should give the article a chance here. Mangojuicetalk 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And, let me note, I think there is no conflict of interest, based on WP:AGF and this post from the creator on my talk page. Mangojuicetalk 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


  • "Keep and nominate."

Suz Andreasen is a prominent American artist in the field of Jewellery Design as well as publishing/writing and music. There are hundreds if not thousands of links to her work on google. Not many photos of her as she is shy about having her picture taken but this should not be relevant. In primary sources like text books and art books I have a few dozen which is a great deal consider she is only 42. She is in major museums, showed at SOFA (this is no small feat I can tell you in the world of functional art) and here is the link: http://www.sofaexpo.com/NY/2006/fact.htm. All of this and more makes her a notable person. I included her parents in the article because her father, who invented memory wire, was exposed to toxicity and got Multiple Myaloma and died when she was only 20. It was under his encouragement that she pursued metalsmithing. Her mother, who is a noted scientist an author was also mentioned because it was through Nancy that she learned to write. These are only there because of her background - not as any form of nepetism as Suz Andreasen does not need it as she is entirely notable in her own right through her works which are easily found. Also, if is sometimes important to include geneological background when a number of notable persons come from the same family. Example: Rembrant Bugatti the sculpture was the son of Carlo Bugatti the Car designer.

It appears that under this category of Jeweller Designers, more individuals are needed and good editors as well. Since I am a PHD student at Bard College in the curatorial dept, I can tell you definitively that this individual should be nominated. As Mango said, there are hundreds of primary resources for her life's works, it is just a matter of handling the article in a way that is appropriate and meshing that with the given category.

That being said, I will note that in this category I see alot of inconsitencies. Example: Efva Attling From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Efva Attling, was born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1952 and is well known today for being an avant garde jewellery designer. In the early 80's she played in the band "X Models" and released the hit single "Två av oss" (Two of us) her passion for design continued by working for Levi's and H&M before in the mid 90's staring her own distinct line of jewellery. Today top celebrities from Madonna to Jennifer Aniston and Kylie Minogue have all been seen wearing her unique designs. She lives with Eva Dahlgren, popular Swedish pop singer.


In my assesment this designer Efva Attling has less under her belt than not only Suz Andreasen, but many other designers I would like to see included such as Dorie Nossiter, Archibald Knox, George Jensen, JAR, - the list goes on and on. This person, Efva is included as a person of note, seemingly because she has Madonna as a client. Ms Andreasen is a couturier for Oprah Winfrey but I did not mention this because I felt that in a scholarly approach, this should not be the primary argument.

So, please illimunate me as to how and why the various designers who are listed under "Jewellery Designers" are there as opposed to the person I am currently working on who seems to have more credentials than most included on Wikipedia with the exclusion of Picasso and Lalique?

Thanks, Archie Martin

Archiemartin 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, not because the article fails in quality the person does in notability. Having won a few prestigious national awards is certainly enough for WP:BIO, but that article needs a lot of work. If it survives this AfD it will be nominated again next month if it does not improve Alf photoman 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Keep

In rebutt to Alf photoman this is not a weak keep. When you say that having a few prestigious awards is not enough, you should then release and not keep most of the jewellery designers you have under your heading of Jewellery Designers. Further - this person is of note - not only because she has won prestigious natiional awards but because of her work in areas of arts - publishing, music as well as functional design.

Archie Archiemartin 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • (struck keep !vote, duplicate) Mangojuicetalk 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is well written, and referenced enough to start, and the person seems notable enough as well, and does fit WP:BIO. Ganfon 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Author is well versed and subject is well known. Seems like simple math to me. DrregusDrregus 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Simple Google search suggests notability in that realm of expertise. JuJube 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. --Wetman 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to fit WP:BIo and author seems a good writer.jamjam207.237.49.43 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep tho perhapos it should count since I think was the one who removed the speedy tag. But I did so on the basis that she might be notable, and it would be worth a debate. I'm glad to find out that, under the cooperative checking of an AfD, that she apparently is. DGG 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The editor has to flesh this out considerably. Until I read the talk page, I was fairly underwhelmed. It was not at all clear to me that this person was particularly notable. I now think she might be, but I am somewhat puzzled that the editor was not able to get more information about the subject in the article, given that the editor apparently knows the subject personally. Compare this biography to other biographies on WP and use them as a guide for how to convince us of notability.--Filll 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to Weak Keep:

I suggest that perhaps the last post was underwhelmed because the editor does not have expertise in this area and I have been basically hammered to death about NOT going on more about the subjects personal life nor my insights as that would not be in keeping with WP:BIO. I have read all of the bios in this category and quite frankly, with the exception of Lalique, I was not only underwhelmed to quote Filll, but also feel that I have done en excellent job at editing this. If you look at my edits, I have done now more than 40-50. I am more than happy to add more but at this time, I would like to see not only a little more support from editors to keep, (especially those who know about functional art and design) but also a little less waffling here. The rules are the rules. I am following them to my best and to the letter. So - once this is put up, and the consensus period is over, (which is should be soon and we seem to have a consensus that it should be kept) then I am more than happy to elaborate further on not only her, but other designers I have knowledge of either through research or personally - dead or living. Let's try and be a little supportive here. We do this in our spare time. I love doing it, but editorial rules must be followed and I have done that. ArchiemartinArchiemartin

    • (struck keep !vote, duplicate) Mangojuicetalk 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Solid Keep Seems to fit WP:BIo and author seems a good writer.bernardolaBernardola
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.