Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eileen Evans

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The result was Withdrawn by Nominator.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Evans

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about graphic designer Post World War II which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. It also does not satisfy WP:NARTIST as it is not a substantial part of an exhibition even the one which the article claims she is a featured artist credits all the art to her colleague not her. Searches have brought up only minimum hits, this could be a symptom predating the internet. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evans is notable for several reasons. 1) her work is part of a significant collection (national archive) thus she passes notability for artists. 2) reading the sources, it's clear that her talent was valued... she started in the ministry as a clerk, was noticed for her art skills, became an assistant and then an equal partner. 3) remember the time period: of course she was paired with a man in a government agency, and who do you think they credit? My search shows dual credit, including at the national archive which we can safely consider an authority. Also it's clear this is a new writer working on this article... the editor would be better served through helping them learn the ropes than by carrying out a delete discussion a day or so after article creation. WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is her work a substantial portion of the collection? What sources are you reading to gather her talent was valued or not, as none of them said any such thing, are you providing a synopsis? This [1] ref clearly says she was not in fact the artist but worked on layout even though they did do independent commissions none of hers have been provided as proof. As for your last point it has no bearing on whether the article subject meets inclusion criteria or not.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having work in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National War achives satisfies WP:ARTIST. Sorry McMatter, but I think you misread the ref: the article does not say Eileen was not one of the artists. If she did the layout, typography and forms of the pieces she was making collaboratively, that makes her very much an artist! I am guessing that Reginald handed her a sketch and she turned it into the final form. As any designer will tell you, those require heavy duty artistic skills. Also, you say, refs are probably trapped on paper somewhere. Let's give them time to come to light. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (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.