Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ture i Berg

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. Daniel (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ture i Berg

[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)

I couldn't find anything about this artist. I believe for now he fails the notability guidelines - there's no significant coverage. If someone adds the appropriate sources to prove the subject is notable, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently Per Dahlström discusses Ture Alfredsson in his doctoral dissertation, Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt, from 2002. I've written to Dahlström to ask if there's any way to get an electronic copy, as well as asked my library to get it for me through an interlibrary loan. /Julle (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to indicate that he is anything more than a locally known folk artist. His initial situation seems similar to some artists who were:"discovered" by the Souls Grown Deep Foundation. However, the notable SGD artists had their work collected by major museums-- and written about in books, magazines and newspapers. This artist has next to no coverage, no museums and no reviews. There is nothing on the Swedish Wikipedia either.Possibly (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is also something about him in Olle Hessle, Okända mästare, skulptur på egna vägar (2008). He is mentioned in a page on local curiosities in Årjäng here. ~~How about selectively merging this to the Årjäng Municipality article (i.e. mentioning him there with two or three sentences) and redirecting this article there?~~ --Hegvald (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on Julle's checking of sources. --Hegvald (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for self-taught artists and folk artists, however, this one is not notable. There are tens of thousands of such artists throughout the world, and we can't have an article on all of them. In this case, there just is not the kind of significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to pass WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Julles comment and source available in the article. I think this is just within the threshold for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now read Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt (Dahlström, 2002) as well as Dahlström's short chapter on Alfredsson in Okända mästare : Skulptur på egna vägar (2008, ed. Olle Nessle) and expanded the article somewhat as well as added them to support existing statements. I'm guessing the text on Alfredsson in En hôger Sellere which was the one source in the article earlier depends a lot on Dahlström, it seems to say very similar things. Additiontally, sv:Kerstin Högstrand wrote an article about Alfredsson in Värmländsk kultur 16:4, 1995, "Mannen med tidspistolen : om bonden, snickaren och skulptören Ture Alfredsson, Sillerud", which I don't have access to right now. In total, this means that we have a) a number of good, reliable sources from more than person, b) that the texts focus on Alfredsson specifically, at length – he's not merely mentioned in passing – and c) that they cover a significant span of time: He died in 1984, yet these texts are written between 1995 and 2011, signifying enduring interest in his life and art. Having looked into this, I'd say he passes WP:GNG; Alfredsson seems to have become, to some degree, a symbol of this kind of art. /Julle (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle: how long, approximately, would you say these texts are? Possibly (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know we do not go by other stuff here, but if one wants to see what an article for a notable rural folk artist looks like, see Maud Lewis. There is no need there to scour the attic for sourcing as is being done here. Possibly (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight pages on Alfredsson in Dahlström's dissertation, Särlingskap och konstnärsmyt, four in Okända mästare : Skulptur på egna vägar, five in Högstrand's article in Värmländsk kultur. I've no access to En hôger Sellere, the book which this article was based on before I did my additions, so I don't know how long that text is.

"Several books, plays and films have since been produced about her", says the article on Maud Lewis. This is true for a very small minority of our biographies: it's not our threshold for inclusion, nor do I think it should be: we build articles on less. /Julle (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julle (AGF on the existence of these sources) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a clearer consensus based on the new sources mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – in my view the sources described by Julle are sufficient to pass GNG. Wham2001 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage, and not just mentions, in multiple sources as brought out by Julle above, article has been improved to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2021 (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.