Talk:Jess de Wahls

Proposed deletion

I don't think this artcile should be deleted. It is of interest to several wiki projects, has been reviewed as start class and includes reliable sources in mainstream news media and art press.Melissa Highton (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason that was provided for the proposed deletion is "no credible claim of significance". We have a criterion for speedy deletion for that: WP:A7. A7 is often misapplied. This essay may be helpful: Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance Vexations (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I really wish somebody would explain (in this article) that free speech doesn't mean that you have the right to sell your wares in a store. It means that the government won't interference with expressing your opinion, no matter how deplorable. A museum store can choose what it sells, and may refuse to sell anything for any reason. I'm not sure if there is a reliable source that gets that right, but if there is, it ought to be included. Vexations (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I looked for a a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject and found none. I elected to PROD rather than CSD-tag, though, as I thought it would be more likely to result in an improved article, rather than deletion, compared to the latter approach. However, if editors believe that this article's subject is notable, either for their creative production or their views, beyond the limits of WP:BLP1E, I hope that changes to reflect that will yet be made in article space. It is still true, at the time of his writing, that all the vast majority of sources offered in this article seem to pertain to a single event. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a valid point, I think. Is there any coverage of the subject that is NOT about the "controversy"? Vexations (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Odd comment Vexations, did you not read reference numbers 2, 3, 4, 6 (mostly), 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12? 99g (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that all some of those references - including the 2 (!) ones from before the "controversy" - were added to the article after I made my last comment, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. I believe The Straits Times, Crafts Council, Lux Magazine, Patch Dahlia/Royal Academy, Blue Mountains Gazette and Scene360 references were all there prior to your last comment at 22:51 that such references didn't exist. 99g (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You are quite right; I misread the dates. I have corrected my preceding text accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I could have worded that better and provided more context. I was thinking about what a plausible scenario for a deletion could be. It's not PROD and not A7. But: is there any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that is about the artist, or her work, and not about the removal of her work from the gift shop? I think that is a question that could be answered at an AfD. Vexations (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The article seems to have consistent problems with promotional content that greatly exaggerates her renown as an artist and that presents a biased version of what transpired at the Royal Academy, exclusively promoting her own perspective. She doesn't really seem to be notable as an artist at all (and she doesn't even have a German Wikipedia article, despite being German), but received some media attention when the store stopped selling her work and when she claimed she had been cancelled due to her trans-exclusionary views and activism. She only appears to be notable in connection with that event and those activities. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe it would be more appropriate to move this article to Royal Academy of Arts transphobia controversy and make it into an article about the event[1] rather than this otherwise unknown artist. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed move. This article is about Ms de Wahls, not the Royal Academy. Also, the proposed title implies that the Royal Academy is transphobic, which is not what the controversy was about. And if her work was in the Royal Academy shop, she was not unknown prior to the controversy. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed move. The Royal Academy page should perhaps have a 'controversies' section which could link back to this page.Melissa Highton (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)