Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art jewelry forum


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Art jewelry forum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources do not indicate notability as they are not sufficiently independent. Seem to be an assortment of pages from their website, mentions of them in various artist's CVs, a press release and something from the publication they funded. Neither the references nor a web search indicate that anyone independent has given them in -depth coverage. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that There are two sources that are from .edu addresses. Both these sources are art galleries operated by American Universities.Clarefinin (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My first thought was, what is art jewelry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_jewelry I see it is something notable that does exist. And my understanding is artjewlryforum.org is a website for promoting and selling this? Probably no way of a website on the topic getting notable enough to need it's own wikipage. Just not enough people will be buying jewlry art because of it's expensiveness. This might change in the future, who knows, but at this point the reliable sources aren't there to justify it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a market for art jewelry. There is a market for individual collectors, as well as a large market for museum acquisitions. Almost every large American museum has a collection of art jewelry, most notably:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, The Museum of Art and Design, The Philadelphia Art Museum, Huston Museum of Art, The Mint Museum, and on and on and on.Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very few people own a Van Gogh, but that in itself does not mean that there is not a lot of content written about his pieces. It is very conceivable that people will write about "art jewelery" in a significant manner even if no one can afford to actually buy it, and that a publication catering to this topic could become notable. However, I am just not seeing any evidence that such has happened with this publication. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This publication includes historic articles from scores of international art historians, theoretical interpretations of work, and exhibition review.Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the only mention in the .edu references is of the order of "this exhibition was given a grant by...", not exactly in-depth coverage. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Happysquirrel, I chose those particular references to cite that those were grant recipients. If I flushed out individual sections with reviews of those particular shows, would that help the the pages chances?Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , Yes that might help. What determines whether a topic can have a stand alone article is evidence that other reliably published sources without a connection/interest in the subject have written about the subject in a significant manner. Places that co-sponsor/receive/give grants are not independent. And just because something is mentioned on an .edu site does not mean that the content has been "published" with editorial oversight etc. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - All I could find in the mainstream press through a Google News search was a few passing mentions and a PR piece or two. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that several other Wiki pages uses articles from Art Jewelry Forum as their sources.Clarefinin (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am in a predicament now that this organization is used as an academically sound source, but it has never been discussed itself in depth by other academic sources. I am a graduate student in the field of metalsmithing/jewelry. Unfortunately our field on a whole has been historically vastly undocumented. This has slowly been changing, but there is, to date, only a handful of texts written on the field, most of which are too old to have referenced Art Jewelry Forum. The lack of academic writing about our field is in large part why AJF was founded; its core mission is to help legitimize and historicize the field. As someone who currently teaches at a university level in our field, I can assure you that our field considers AJF as an academic source in of itself. Articles from AJF are used in the curriculums of hundreds of metalsmithing/jewelry programs at the university level. My opinion is that an organization that has such a respected and wide influence on a field on a whole, and academia specifically, deserves a wiki page.Clarefinin (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It can't just be your opinion though. I don't really have an opinion since I'm not an art jewlry expert. But without reliable sources how can it be here? No one doubts that art jewelry itself deserves a wiki page it's just that artjewelryforum.org the website doesn't. Modern Art has it's own wiki page but modernart.net, the top website for selling pieces, does not. Popish Plot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * AJF is not interested in selling jewelry. They are interested in the publication of academic articles. They are a publisher, not a seller.Clarefinin (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ok I got confused after reading your earlier comment "There is a market for art jewelry." I had read that wrongly. Well no matter what it is for, is it notable? They are interested in publication of academic articles. Are there reliable sources that mention them? It relies too much on primary sources here aka links to the website itself. Then non reliable sources like the larkscraftys.com one which says it is in conjunction with artjewlryforum. How about a third party source not connected to them? The two .edu sources are the best bet but I think it might not be enough for concensus to say this is notable. Do any of the sources used for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_jewelry mention this organization, the art jewelry forum? Popish Plot (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * this might help Popish Plot (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it has "such a respected and wide influence on a field on a whole, " then there will be sources to verify such a claim. We are not here to establish AJF as a reliable source. It is likely that the places in Wikipedia where AJF has been used as a "source" are also in need of corrections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No academic journal talks about other academic journals. They are, in essence, in competition with each other.Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While academic journals might not "talk about each other", their a multitudes of other reliable sources where such coverage can and does occur. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, due to not enough coverage. Exact reason why Draft:Art Jewelry Forum (AJF) was rejected yesterday, this is why you shouldn't just create an article after it's rejected at WP:AFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded several sections of the page and added a fair number of additional references. If someone could be so kind as to take another look and give me feedback it would be much appreciated! I also have a questions on linking to foreign wiki pages. AJF is an international organization; its board members span four of five continents. I would like to link select board members to their own wiki pages in their respected countries, but was told not to create international wiki links.... Are there any suggestions of how I can create an easily understood link between the AJF page and the board members international wiki ages? Also, someone added that a citation was needed when I was talking about a specific book being "the first of it's kind". There is nothing besides press releases which also state this. I am stating this, personally, because I am an expert on the field, know every book published on the field, teach the history of the field at a top ten university, and know that it is, in fact, groundbreaking. Is there a way to contest the "citation needed"? Thank you everyone for your help with this projectClarefinin (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, about the citation needed, unfortunately, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it can only publish things that others have said in reliable secondary sources. Press releases are just not independent and cannot be used as sources. Furthermore, although you may have evidence as an expert in the field for this claim, if it is not published, it is original research and cannot be on Wikipedia. I have had a similar experiences with a math article. It is extremely frustrating, but if the statement cannot be sourced, it will unfortunately have to be removed. About inter-language links, all the Wikipedias do try to be include content about notable international figures. No matter the person's nationality, if they satisfy English Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, an article can be written about them. Some may already have existing articles. Otherwise, perhaps a translated article would be a good addition to enwiki. If they do not satisfy enwiki's inclusion guidelines, then wikilinking is definitely inappropriate. Hope that makes sense. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * HappySquirrel, thank you for clarifying, and yes it makes sense. As I am sure you've gathered, I'm new to wikipedia, and there is a lot of customs to become acquainted with. If I wanted to make an english version of an international wiki page is there an easy way to request a duplicate? Or would I just create one from scratch with translated text? Also, what is your feeling on the AJFs page in regards to establishing "notability" at this point? 24.179.112.58 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Note: If IP editor "24.179.112.58" is actually, then please remember to try and log in before you comment. I am pretty sure this was just an accident, but it could lead others to mistakenly assume that multiple accounts are being used by a single editor. So, it's best to stick with a single account. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC))
 * Comment: What Happysquirel says about press releases is not entirely true. Press releases are considered to be primary sources and they can be used to source information, but they must be used carefully and typically only for certain types of uncontroversial factual information. For this reason, a primary source is not acceptable for asserting notability per WP:ORG because Wikipedia notability is in a sense more of an "interpretation" than a absolute "fact". It needs to be shown that multiple secondary or third-party reliable sources have significantly covered the subject per WP:ORGDEPTH for notability to be established. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep probably notable. This is basically all the coverage to be expected about any organization of this type, and I think it's sufficient. It seems to be the largest organization in its field, and we usually accept that as notability.  DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated article seems better, haven't got time to properly analyse the sources now, but probably just about notable, per WP:GNG. Also, I guess if they are the top of their field, then as says, keep is probably best. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG above. His point about "largest" entirely valid I think. c1cada (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep While the lack of independent references is a weakness (but also a problem for most niche publications/organisations) contemporary art jewellery is a recognised high art form, embedded in the university system, covered in its own publications, and collected and researched by museums. As a person who works in the museum sector I can confidently say Art Jewelry Forum is a notable organisation and source of a significant amount of the relevant online publishing in this area.Auchmill (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. W i k i 92 man  (Talk/Stalk) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the new sources satisfy me that this passes GNG. As DGG points out, the small size of the field explains why sources are hard to find, as they are mostly in more niche publications. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Although opinion may vary about whether this is fine art, the subject is impotrtant, and the Art jewelry forum is actively publishing.Hiart (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: In full disclosure: I've met and worked with a few AJF folks at a workshop. That said, if I may, I'd like to ask people to consider the organization in the light that DGG, Happy Squirrel, and Auchmill suggest: this organization is the largest one of the largest in their field, even if seemingly niche outside of that field. AmandaRR123 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be the most precise I should say "one of the largest" rather than "the largest", since I don't have firm numbers on that, but I think the main point still stands. AmandaRR123 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep agree completely with the "keep" comments above. WilliamDigiCol (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.