Talk:Enzina Fuschini/Archive 1

Notability
IMHO: I don't believe Enzina Fuschini is notable enough to merit her own article - and I would welcome views and input from others. I'm sure she's a talented artist and designer, but many non-notable artists and designers could make similarly unconvincing claims to notability. Having known three notable public figures is not, in itself, an indication of notability; nor is a list of exhibitions (every artist can compile such lists), especially when they include things like: "Exhibition of Prints and Original Paintings, Habitat, Bournemouth, Dorset" (pictures hung up in a local furniture shop?) - hardly the Tate Gallery. In my opinion, this article reads like a self-promotional piece prepared by a friend or associate of the subject disguised as a biography of a notable figure; see WP:SPIP. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I classify this comment as mobbing part of a vandalism and mobbing campaign against the page. See my comments below. --Jpvandijk (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there.... It is not a part of "mobbing"; I have no idea what that is. I have no connection whatsoever with user "marthamaryrafferty" (who may or may not be Martha Rafferty, Gerry Rafferty's daughter, whom, you are doubtless aware, has been involved in a legal dispute with Enzina Fuschini). I have recently reverted some of user "marthamaryrafferty"'s edits on the Gerry Rafferty article, which I have very carefully edited and looked after for about six years. I also noted, below, that the edits she made to this article, Enzina Fuschini, were very inappropriate. The edits by "marthamaryrafferty" to "Gerry_Rafferty" led me to this page - and at that point I started to question the notability.


 * This is a totally separate issue. I have, and do, question the notability of Enzina Fuschini for an article on Wikipedia and I added a box to the article so that other people could discuss this and give their views. You might be right... or perhaps I am right. I completely (100%) agree that the article is "much more serious and elaborated then many others..." and congratulate you on the work you've done on it - it is obviously an extensive piece of work with many references and so on. It is very interesting and I enjoyed reading it. However, that does not settle the issue of notability! I'm sorry that you have removed the "Notability" box - and I would be very grateful if you would restore it, so that we can have a balanced debate with others about whether Ms Fuschini merits an article. I understand and respect your views and also the considerable work you've put into the article, but I would like to hear opinions from other people. If you are right, and Ms Fuschini is indeed considered notable, all will be well. I hope you will agree that there is nothing to lose by having the debate with other users? Thanks.
 * 82.71.0.229 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 82.71.0.229 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out why this person is on Wikipedia. Many of the cites are to broken links and/or questionable sources and much of the content is not cited at all. This seems like a candidate for deletion. Lexlex (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Argument that EF is not notable per WP:N
I would like to argue that Enzina Fuschini (EF) is not notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia, because:

1. She is described as "a renowned designer and artist of Italian origin" but in my opinion this is not supported by the evidence. Although the article contains many references and citations, I don't see that they demonstrate her renown as a designer and artist. For example, under "Early life", the article says: "Prof. Giacomo Migone, at that time President of the Federazione di Critici D`Arte D`Italia, admired her work and wrote numerous positive reviews.[1]" - yet the citation is not to any of these reviews, themselves, but to an end-note that seeks to bolster the authority of Prof Migone and explain who he was. So the assertion about admiration and positive reviews is completely unsupported. As far as I can tell, none of the citations about her are from definitive art books or scholarly publications, which surely we might expect to see for a renowned artist?

2. I have searched the following sources for "Enzina Fuschini":

a) Grove Art Online and the Benezit Dictionary of Artists(surely definitive sources?) - I can find no reference to her in either.

b) Google Books and Google Scholar - a couple of minor references on Google Books that pick up her own exhibition catalogs. For example: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Enzina_Fuschini.html?id=dKPRSAAACAAJ I can find nothing on Google Scholar.

c) A plain Google search for "Enzina Fuschini" seems to bring up (in the first 10 pages of hits) only material about her recent relationship with Gerry Rafferty, financial information about her business, and other minor bits and pieces. There are no scholary hits or material suggesting she is a renowned or notable artist. There are a couple of hits about small exhibitions, such as: http://www.artfacts.net/en/exhibition/enzina-fuschini-a-turning-point-15518/overview.html and a few local press reports.

3. The article lists EF's Collections and Exhibitions. Any reasonably good artist (renowned or otherwise) could post a list of exhibitions and collections. How many of these demonstrate renown and how many are minor exhibitions that any reasonably good artist might claim? I am not qualified to judge this, but I wonder about things like "Permanent Display at the Public Library, Poole, Dorset" and "Exhibition of Prints and Original Paintings, Habitat, Bournemouth, Dorset". Anyone can exhibit their art at their local library; Habitat Bournemouth is (was) merely a furniture shop in the town where she is or was living - such shops often display works of local artists?

4. There are numerous (cited) articles from local papers (Bournemouth Echo etc) about her life and work as a popular and successful, but not especially "notable" (in the Wikipedia sense) artist.

5. I'm sorry to raise this question, but I am curious about the provenance of this article. The article arrived in one piece, fully formed, on 21 June 2012 and has been essentially produced by one editor. If EF were demonstrably and objectively notable, and had been such since the 1970s or earlier (as the article suggests), would we not expect that there would have been material about her on Wikipedia before or that the article would have grown and evolved from a stub in the usual way? Now perhaps the writer suddenly noticed a glaring omission and set about correcting it by producing a detailed, in-depth article about EF. Great. But then, where did all the source/reference material suddenly appear from? Is it WP:OR? As I've noted in 2c, a search for Enzina Fuschini produces almost no material and there is apparently nothing available in definitive, scholary sources. Therefore, I have to ask, where did all the material come from? Was it provided by Enzina Fuschini herself or someone closely associated with her? Otherwise, how would we suddenly arrive at a lengthy list of all her exhibitions and collections? I'm sorry, but I have to raise the possibility of WP:SPIP.

6. Does notability rest on EF's association with Giorgio de Chirico, Mohamed Al-Fayed, and Gerry Rafferty? a) The association with de Chirico seems fairly slight: she stayed with him for six months and he kept two of her paintings (an unreferenced claim). Does that demonstrate her notability? Maybe he kept her paintings out of politeness? Who knows? There is no objectively verifiable quote from him saying: "Enzina Fuschini was the greatest artist I had seen for years..." or anything like that - so we do not know what he thought of her. He may have thought her fantastic; we do not know. b) The association with Harrods is clear and clearly documented: she has worked as a designer for Harrods. But how does that make her different from many other designers who have produced products for Harrods? And does it make her notable? I don't think so. How many products does Harrods sell? As for Mohammed Al-Fayed, the article says: "she became acquainted with the Egyptian businessman Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al-Fayed, after which a long and durable friendship developed with the Al-Fayed family." But there is no objective support for that - and how does "acquaintance" or "friendship" confer notability? c) The association with Rafferty: Here I declare my interest as the writer of a substantial amount of the Wikipedia article about Gerry Rafferty over a period of 5/6 years. My interest is in documenting his life, objectively - which is how I came to be scrutinizing this article about EF. Rafferty was notoriously private, even reclusive, and almost no objective information about him currently exists. We have only EF's word about what took place in the period when she and Rafferty lived together and hints that Rafferty's family disagree about what actually happened. There is apparently a disagreement over whether she and Rafferty were engaged; there was also a recent legal battle between EF and Rafferty's family. Does EF's association with Rafferty make her notable? I think not. There is no Wikipedia article about Carla Ventilla, Rafferty's wife of 20 years, undoubtedly his muse, and the inspiration for some of his greatest songs; she might claim notability. We also don't know how many other women (if any) Rafferty was associated with in the 20 years between his divorce from Carla and his death. Suppose there were 500 of them. Would they all merit Wikipedia articles? Of course not. EF has publicly stated that Rafferty proposed to her before his death, but Rafferty's family appear to refute this. But even being Rafferty's wife (which EF wasn't) would not necessarily make her notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

In summary, I agree that EF is a talented artist and designer (whose works, incidentally, I like very much) who has clearly led a very interesting and colourful life - and I enjoyed reading about her. I thank the writer for putting a lot of effort into writing an interesting article (though it does, as an irrelevant aside, need some stylistic cleaning up). But I don't believe that EF meets objective criteria of notability for an article on Wikipedia. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Short Preliminary Replies and Arguments that EF is notable per WP:N
I would like to comment on some of the lines, although today I am really rather busy and therefore I will comment in more detail later on, although it all seems to me a little bit overdone. And of course I hope my comments will not sound offensive, they are not ment this way, by the way I appreciate the polite way in which you write, but as I will show I am afraid I doubt on the objectivity, nothing personal.

1. You are clearly a person dedicated to Gerry Rafferty in a special way, which I admire (myself I know his music since the beginning and love it much), and therefore I am afraid I would have to put my doubts on your full objectivity in this matter. It seems to me that in sort of a way Gerry Rafferty fans have some doubts on the person of Enzina Fuschini, I do not know why exactly.

2. You have dedicated an enormous amount of time to this question, which makes me again doubt on the objectivity of this all; Do you always dedicate all this time to persons who's biographies are proposed in Wikipedia? Tell me more about it.

3. Normally I do not dispute with persons that do not reveal their identity. I am sorry about that, but this is a matter of principles; I see no political or other reason why 90% of people should not be editing under their own name in Wikipedia and I have also lead a dispute about this.

4. In general speaking about your comments, remember that their is a long list of references in this article. Putting in doubt if an artist is or not is worth while to be mentioned is to be judged upon by art history experts. Furthermore Fuschini is not only on this page for her artistic abilities, but because of her links and influence in the lives of other notable persons. You are trying to dismantle these one by one, but in reality you are underlining them, because they are all there, not just one of them, which makes the person inetersting. I agree, not each family member of the Rafferties has a page, exactly because he/she is JUST and ONLY a Rafferty family member with no other links. And so on. Oh by the way, look at the page of Pippa Middleton. She is nobody. No qualities, nothing. Just the sister of a royal family member. What is defined as "a socialite". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pippa_Middleton. Does she deserve a page in Wikipedia? I would say yes. Do you say no for the same reasons?

5. I highly respect your dedication to the private life of Rafferty and tried not to write anything on the page of Fuschini that is not documented by (probably your work) on the Rafferty page. And I appreciate and can understand that you are curious about the period just before his death and that you hope this period can be sorted out (documented). And why do you not contact her at this point to know more? Anyway lets hope for a documented clarification in written form by Fuschini herself.

6. When I prepare a new page on an argument I always prepare everything in detail on a sandbox page. That is part of my style of editing in Wikipedia, and I am not the only one in this. Sometimes things start with a stub, sometimes with well documented material. Nothing strange about that.

--Jpvandijk (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good example about Pippa Middleton. I would actually say "no", but that's is purely my opinion!! :) 82.71.0.229 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Other issues
Some of the photos on this page look like copyright violations - e.g. the one of Gerry Rafferty from The Sun newspaper.

Recent edits by user "Marthamaryrafferty" are also problematic for various reasons - NPOV etc. However, since I don't agree that the subject even merits an article, I'm not going to address those problems. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See my comments on the mobbing. I will report this to Wikipedia management. The article is much more serious and elaborated then many others I have read and helped to enhance.--Jpvandijk (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again.... And please note that I also questioned the inappropriate edits by marthamaryrafferty.
 * However, You haven't addressed the question about copyright violations. The photo of Gerry Rafferty and Enzina Fuschini you have included and labelled "Source: Own work; Author :Jpvandijk"." It was printed here:
 * http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/3331595/Weve-lost-another-Scottish-legend-and-a-wonderful-talent.html
 * It is attributed "Collect", though I am uncertain if that is a photo agency Can you please kindly confirm that you have been given permission to use this photo? If you have simply copied it from the newspaper, it is probably a copyright violation, per WP:CV?
 * Thanks 82.71.0.229 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks 82.71.0.229 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sun has no copyrights on this picture. It is a public domain photo. There is no violation per WP:CV.

Jpvandijk (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and Mobbing
This page and the relative sandbox page on my profile has been subject to serious vandalism and mobbing, by a now deleted Wikipedia user called Marthamaryrafferty, and non registered users that keep attacking the page. I will report this to Wikipedia managment, because it seriously damages my reputation as a serious wikipedia editor. --Jpvandijk (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues here. First, I agree that the page was vandalised (or at least very inappropriately edited) by the user you have named. As I have said up above, my attention was drawn to this page by the vandalism. Second, I raised a question about the notability and added a "Notability" box to the article.This is (as I have argued above) a legitimate question that I would like to discuss with other users according to the notability policy WP:N. My addition of the notability box has nothing to do with the earlier edits - except that, without those edits, I would never have spotted this article.

20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.0.229 (talk) 82.71.0.229 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that the fact that the vandalism applied by a deleted user with the same name as a member of the Rafferty family, and the incredible amount of time dedicated by the anonymous editor 82.71.0.229 to generaly tackle the article in all its parts to make it be removed from Wikipedia, coincide and are also coinciding with the same period that a legal issue is being raised is highly indicative that clearly a campaign of mobbing and vandalism is being applied to Wikipedia. I will raise this issue to the Wikipedia management because I am a respectful and experienced editor. Wikipedia is not a medium to fight legal and personal battles, it is not a blog. It is a medium that is created to generate good, respectful and documented articles on all subjects relative to science and human society to inform people in an objective way. There is nothing objective to all this, and it is higly suspect. --Jpvandijk (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with your sentiments about Wikipedia, but I would repeat that I have no connection whatsoever with the user "marthamaryrafferty". As I have pointed out below, I reverted a substantial amount of "her" (if it is indeed a woman) editing on the Gerry Rafferty article! I have not edited this article in any way other than to add a "notability questioned" box at the top to invite debate and discussion from other users [Special:Contributions/82.71.0.229|82.71.0.229]] (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On the matter of "the incredible amount of time dedicated by the anonymous editor 82.71.0.229 [i.e. me] to generaly tackle the article in all its parts to make it be removed from Wikipedia", may I say: 1) I have spent perhaps an hour (hardly incredible) reviewing this article and making a case that it is not notable. I did this because I originally flagged the article with a notability box (and a short paragraph on this page explaining why), requesting reviews and opinions from other users, which you quickly deleted/dismissed with a single sentence ("I classify this comment as mobbing part of a vandalism and mobbing campaign against the page") that did not address the matter of notability. I have therefore offered you a more detailed critique of your article that you cannot simply brush aside with one sentence :) We can't resolve this by me saying "It is not notable" and you saying "It IS notable" and me saying "It is NOT notable": we have to have a proper, reasoned debate considering the evidence carefully. You have put a lot of time and effort into this article, which I genuinely appreciate and respect - and I am showing you the respect you deserve by giving you a reasoned critique of it. I could simply have written one dismissive paragraph: I sincerely think you deserve better than that. A serious article deserves a serious critique. Finally, as I said below, I am delighted for the article to be on Wikipedia if, by consensus, people agree that it satisfies WP:N 82.71.0.229 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Renowned?
I'm pretty skeptical about someone posting long rants about another person's bio on WP. I have to assume there is a conflict of interest, and I'm going to ignore everything written above.

However, this article is obviously written to promote the artist and make her sound more important than she is. It's full of utter trivial, contains a boatload of peacock terms, and is far from neutral. Furthermore, for a “renowned” artist, especially one who lives in an English-speaking country, I have to wonder why I'm having trouble finding even one media reference to her art.

This all smells more than a bit fishy. —Kerfuffler 08:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing special about this biography with respect to other biographies. All biographies make people sound more interesting then they really are. And what is interesting for one, is it also intersting for others? Lets try to find some examples in other biographies before we attack one in particular, like you correctly stated a conflict of interest is clearly present, and I think I made it clear above. --Jpvandijk (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for taking the trouble to reply at length, Jpvandijk. Do I have a conflict of interest? Absolutely not. My interest is simply in getting to the facts about the final years of Gerry Rafferty's life. My interest in Rafferty is clearly demonstrated by the (probably) hundreds of hours I have spent writing and researching Gerry Rafferty over the last 5/6 years. It was, in fact, me who originally researched and added all the material about Enzina Fuschii to the Gerry Rafferty article! I would hardly have done that if I had a problem with Ms Fuschini. As you noted, a user named "marthamaryrafferty" recently deleted a lot of it and I have since reverted a lot of what she did and put it back, with qualifications noting her apparent concerns. I hope that convinces you that I have no conflict of interest. I have absolutely no dispute with EF and no bias either way. If you are wondering why I have made such a detailed critique of the Enzina Fuschini article, it's because you have written a detailed article that merits a serious evaluation. If you are questioning why I edit as an IP address, it's simply that I forgot my password several years ago, then made many edits to Gerry Rafferty under my IP address, and now continue to do so so it's obvious who is editing that article. The talk page for my IP address clearly shows that I am a registered user (chrisw404) and vice-versa to make it obvious I am not a sock puppet. I have no problem whatsoever with the article Enzina Fuschini staying on Wikipedia if it can be demonstrated that it is notable per WP:N. I have stated my case and I leave it to other users to debate and resolve this one way or the other. Thank you again for listening, Jpvandijk, and for your very courteous reply :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.0.229 (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)