Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Christian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:25, 24 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 delete. Firstly, thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion respectful and not letting it get too heated. I'm sympathetic to the idea that having her career primarily in the pre-Internet era, references about her are hard to track down with a mere Google search. However, I would expect to find at least something for an important and notable artist, even one from this era. That being said, I will restore this to the draft space upon request if anyone wants to commit the time to finding the references in offline sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Christian

[edit]
Sharon Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Advertorially-toned biography of an artist who may have a valid claim to passing WP:CREATIVE -- but neither makes the case in a neutral way nor reliably sources it. The article is based almost entirely on primary sources like the web pages of art galleries and organizations she was directly involved in, while the few genuinely reliable sources here aren't actually about her -- for instance, one article in The Guardian entirely fails to mention her at all, but is cited only to support a subjective assertion about the style of another artist that this one has supposedly (but not sourcedly) been compared to. And a New York Sun article also fails to mention her at all, with the added bonus that I'm having a harder time figuring out why it's even there — all of the sources here are just contextlessly linkfarmed at the bottom of the article, with no indication whatsoever of what content is referenced to which source. The quality of the writing and sourcing here simply isn't acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am surprised this was accepted at AfC: the various claims made in the text are unreferenced, and the supposed references stacked at the end are generally to items which do not even mention the subject. I have marked those which I have checked and failed to find mention of this person. (I haven't checked others, but she is unlikely to be mentioned in the works of Dürer, Matisse or Kahlo.) This leaves the two genuine mentions, which I have expanded. Of these, the Artists in Canada page is merely an online listing page; the Art House one could be more relevant as it is a drawing in the Alberta Foundation for the Arts collection, so could if it is permanently exhibited contribute to WP:ARTIST criterion 4(d), though not be sufficient in itself. Nor are my own searches finding anything better in terms of critical coverage, so for me this fails to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The references given do not support the notability of the artist. References to Matisse, Dürer, Hockney and Kahlo are not supported by secondary or tertiary sources. The factual statements made in the article are unverifiable, not supported by citations and may constitute WP:OR. The subject fails WP:ARTIST in every way: Not regarded as an important figure, not widely cited (1). Not known for originating a new concept, theory or technique (2). She has not played a major role in creating a significant or well-known body of work(3). Her work has not become a significant monument (4a), has not been part of a significant exhibition (4b) has not won significant critical attention (4c) and is is not represented in the collection of several notable galleries or museums.(4d) Mduvekot (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not its content. There's nothing here to pass GNG as things stand right now, because there's not a single reliable source listed that contains any information about her. And this isn't the first time I've had to respond to you that an unsourced or poorly sourced article doesn't pass GNG just because it makes potentially impressive but unsourced or improperly sourced claims; it passes GNG only once a certain minimum depth and volume and quality of sourcing is there to support the claims. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken one of the refs and made it an inline ref to verify a factual claim. If anyone is able to do the same thing with the remaining ref and show that they can be used to verify anything at all, I might be amenable to changing my vote. As far as I can tell, they aren't really references or citations at at all. How, for example is a link to a picture of Matisse's The PInk Studio [1] a citation that supports claims like "She was especially inspired by Matisse…" and "“Bird for Matisse”. is a collage in which the body (or interior) of the bird is made from a watercolor reproduction made by Christian of Matisse’s famous studio interior (“The Pink Studio” from 1911). The counter-change that establishes the volume of the bird is achieved by cutting a negative space around the tail of the bird while modeling the feet and breast of the bird with positive shapes.", or how is "Parallels could be drawn to the work of David Hockney, whose work during this time period was similarly preoccupied with visual puzzles that manifest the dialectic between physical objects and pictoriality." supported by [2]. That's not citing, that's name-dropping. Mduvekot (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article is clearly about an important if lesser-known Canadian artist, and although the article needs some work, a quick search of Canadian art auction records turns up many listings for the artist. I'll work on editing the piece to remove unattributed claims and add references to art-auction records etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Art auction records" do not confer notability for Wikipedia purposes; only reliable source coverage in media does that, and a person who cannot be sourced to any media coverage does not get a Wikipedia article just because of auction sales. As well, I'd note that you were the first non-IP contributor to this article, probably are the IP number who created it as well, and have never made an edit to Wikipedia on any other topic besides this one — all of which gives you the air of having a vested interest of some sort. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a "non-IP" contributor is. I'm not hiding from my vested interest in this subject. Indeed, the power of Wikipedia is that it taps into the vested interest that all of us feel for something--the power of wikipedia is to have this vested interest checked by a dispassionate community of curious and engaged people. Your comment made it seem as if you are somehow invested in divesting people of interest in wikepedia, which seems counterproductive to the broader enterprise. I am not hiding from the fact: I wrote the entry on Sharon Christian (I thought this fact was clear because I created an account in order to do so, and wrote the article while logged in to the account I created; I have never created a wikipedia article; and I hasten to add that this experience has not increased my appetite to do another). Christian was an amazing artist whose work I came to know because I am originally from West Vancouver, where she exhibited regularly at local galleries. She is not a family member or relative. I knew her simply because she was a famous artist, well known in Western Canada. I was stunned that there wasn't already a wiki page for her! I take it as the mission of Wikipedia to educate the public about people like her. I am not the gate-keeper of what constitutes fame or notability, and I appreciated the first round of feedback: wiki articles should not contain original content, and my original attempt had unattributed content (I have removed it, and will not put it back until I can source the attributions). But I would think that it is reasonable to expect that an artist whose work is in a major national collection, who had many solo exhibitions, is quoted in the press and whose work is described in a number of journals (and whose work comes up regularly for auction), surely meets the bar set by wikipedia--it is this kind of evidence through which many (if not most) artists eventually acquire fame (where would Van Gogh be?). Christian is in the Canadian Heritage Information database of Canadian artists. Her work is in the Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Much Music/Much West did an entire story broadcast on national television about her (see link to archived footage cited in the article). Moreover, there are dozens more publications that attest to her important contributions to the tradition of female artists in Western Canada which will be added to the wiki entry in time. The guidelines of "sourcing" on wikipedia state: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process". By those guidelines, I fail to see how Christian is not justified in having a wikipedia page. I'll end by saying that I think it is often the case that the discourse on art (and fame) has been dominated by men, and that the voices and contributions of female artists are all-to-often shut out from this discourse because of un-intended prejudice (unconscious I'm sure, but the consequence is nonetheless exclusion). It would be sad to see this happen to yet another great Canadian female artist. (p.s. I just figured out that using four tildas apparently signs an entry!) Icareaboutart (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What determines whether an artist qualifies for a Wikipedia article is the volume of reliable source media coverage that can or cannot be cited to support the claims. If everything you say about her is true, then there's no reason at all why she couldn't have a properly sourced article — but being included in directories or databases is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be sourceable to media coverage, and nothing else here is either. It's the depth and quality of the sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article that determines whether it's in or out, not anything that you can simply say, but not properly source, about how notable she should be. And none of the "sourcing" here is cutting it according to our rules about what's valid sourcing and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Icareaboutart, I think you may be misinterpreting our use of the term "vested interest". We mean a (financial) stake in a particular outcome. I don't think applies to you. But you may be trying to right great wrongs. I'd like to note that some of us (I'll speak for myself here) are very interested in improving the coverage of Canadian women artists, and try to help new editors become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that new editors sometimes find difficult to understand, seemingly contradictory and that may appear to disadvantage certain groups. Writing a new article as the first thing you do on Wikipedia is very challenging, and it often ends up being a frustrating and disappointing experience. We do want to help you find your way around though. We frequently organize edit-a-thons, like Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2016. If you want to learn more about the project, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I'll try to help you. Mduvekot (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the artist's website here - [3] lists a large number of exhibitions, issues are whether any are significant (point 4 of WP:ARTIST), and whether sources confirming them can be found especially when most of the exhibitions are pre-internet. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hi everybody, I may be late to the discussion, but it seems that the author has updated the entry and added some links. I agree with the earlier comment that most of the sources predate internet availability, which makes documentation more difficult. The sourcing of this entry seems to comply pretty well with the WP:ARTIST requirements - as much as one can reasonably expect, I think, given the circumstances. Of course, the exact standards to which artists should be held are a matter of discussion (and this is a fiendishly difficult question in any such discussion, not just wikipedia.) There may well be a gray zone here, but my feeling is that there's enough "there" there to keep the article. I checked her personal website against the Water Colour Artist Society, as a spot check, her name is listed there - under "Sharon Holmes." geburtstagskind —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched six pages on Google and could not find one secondary source to support notability. Her work is listed at a number of auction houses, but little seems written about her. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This artist was most active before the emergence of the Internet. Article meets WP:ARTIST criteria - particularly #4 as previously noted by a few editors here. Article could use further cleanup and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's pretty easy to find pre-internet resources online (books, news articles). Sharon Christian is not found in those searches either. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: it is not "pretty easy" to find all sources to document notability pre-internet. For example, both the Masters and the Wallace Galleries have confirmed that they represented Christian about 20-25 years ago. But Wallace Galleries says "It has been probably close to 20 years since we represented her now…so no I don’t have any documentation that I know of that you could cite that I know of." and Master's Gallery says "Yes she was represented by Masters Gallery for a period going back 30-35 years but unfortunately we do not have records of her work going that far back therefore are unable to give you dates. Sorry that we could not have been more help." Christian's representation in these galleries was very important during the early 1980s, and there were a number of reviews of her work documenting its importance for Canadian art. see New Canadian Artists, A Preview of the Future, (including illustration of ‘Young Canadian’) by Carol Fleming, Arts West Magazine. Fleming writes "“Sharon Holmes is a watercolourist who began painting the people and buildings of the city's Chinese district as part of her interest in the study of time and change. In her works she both interprets and records the city's cycles with a detailed technique touching on realism. Her old people sunning on benches are as close to the end of their days as are the old buildings. With her fine handling of watercolour she imitates the effects of light and the texture of fabrics and wood. Holmes studied painting at the University of Calgary and the Alberta College of Art. Her works can be viewed at the Masters Gallery.”"

This article was only found after extensive digging, and through inter-library loans. There are no archives of this journal online, yet during its time, it was very influential.

In addition, footage of the influential Much West/Much Art's program with Terry Milligan is not available on-line. There is also no documentation readily available online about the programming (for this TV program or most other programming from that time period). Nonetheless, the program was deeply influential in its time, and it documents the important role that Christian played in art of that time. Fortunately, her official website has footage:

http://www.sharonchristian.ca/first-segment/

  • Keep: I maintain that there is ample documentation of her importance in Canadian Art, although much of it requires more research than simple internet searches; I would challenge wikipedia editors to strive for a less superficial notion of what constitutes notability than simple internet searches (if all research could be conducted with simple internet searches, we wouldn't need wikipedia); I'm grateful for the offers of some people to help edit and refine the article (although I live in Washington DC, so I'll have to explore options closer to me if I am to continue working with wikipedia). There is no doubt that Christian was an extremely important artist in Western Canada. There is ample documentation already in the article, and more will follow. It would be unfortunate to remove the wikipage on her, for it would preclude others from readily accessing the important documentation of her role in Canadian Art. Icareaboutart (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) comment added by Icareaboutart (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's really not that hard to track down old pre-Internet sourcing. I have access to numerous retrieval databases of newspaper coverage, some going back to about 1981 and others going back as far as the 19th century — if a person has ever gotten coverage in The Globe and Mail, its pre-merger predecessors or the Toronto Star as far back as any of those papers has ever existed at all, I can find it on a simple search. If a person has been covered in almost any other major-market newspaper in Canada since 1981, I can find it on a simple search. (And, just for the record, I did check all three of those databases for coverage of Sharon Holmes/Christian WP:BEFORE listing this — there were one or two glancing namechecks of her existence, but none that would be substantive enough to count toward WP:GNG and far more hits for unrelated people of the same name such as a government human resources training officer, an emigrant from New Zealand who was volunteering for the Red Cross while waiting for her work visa, and the widow of porn star John Holmes.) Books exist, and can be ordered interlibrary if your own local library doesn't have a copy — you may have to wait for a while, but it will eventually arrive. And on and so forth: it takes some patience, and/or signing up for access to databases, but it's not such a hard thing to do that we would need to let a Wikipedia article rest on unreliable sources just because it's "hard" to track down better ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not think I'm trying to "right great wrongs". I appreciate that this is sometimes what people try and use wikipedia to do. Rather I am trying to bring to light evidence for the notability of an important Western Canadian Artist. Icareaboutart (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Curious what changed your opinion since your review and approval of the article? Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability requires verifiable evidence per WP:NRVE. While I sympathise with pre-internet era artists, I find it weird that there are hardly any mentions available, neither in newspapers nor in books. As it fails GNG, I tried to look at WP:CREATIVE. I unfortunately do not see any of the 4 criteria being satisfied either. The work doesn't seem to be in the permanent galleries of multiple notable museums (the museums have to be notable btw). Overall, this is a delete right now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is verifiable evidence in the Calgary Herald (a MAJOR newspaper), the Much Music/Much West national television broadcast (a MAJOR TV show from the 1980s and 1990s), the Arts West Journal (a MAJOR publication in its time), the Canadian Painters in Water Colour (the premier society for Water Colour artists in Canada), and the Alberta Foundation for the Arts (a MAJOR Foundation for arts). Unfortunately most of this documentation requires more than a trivial internet search, despite what some might think. You cannot find the full page spread in the Calgary Herald on the internet because the Calgary Herald does not have internet accessible archives; but when you do find it, you will see a large reproduction of the artists' work, which is clear evidence of notability per wiki definitions. And it's worth remembering that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Although her work did have on-going coverage. We all need to remember that research is not just about a quick romp through the internet, which itself was only invented recently and which documents a tiny fraction of the notable work pre-internet. Icareaboutart (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icareaboutart Nobody objects to citing the Calgary Herald. It does not matter that it is not online. I believe it can probably be searched through newspapers.com BTW, but that is immaterial. Sources must be verifiable, not easy to verify. That Christian has done most of her work pre-internet does not matter in the least, and it does not affect the requirement that all significant claims in the article be sourced and that she meets either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Icareaboutart! I looked at it for more than 30 minutes (although you are assuming that I did a cursory 2 minute look). And my !vote was after looking at everything. GNG is clearly not satisfied here and neither WP:ARTIST. Being on a TV show is not an indication of notability (I have been on a TV show as well some years back). What is required is that multiple notable artists have looked at the artists work and it has won critical acclaim. This is something which seems missing here. The Alberta Foundation of Arts gives out grants, but it is not a major museum. If you can show me that the artworks have been kept in the permanent collections of a major museum like Royal Ontario Museum or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. I would be glad to change by vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In response to the sensible (and open-minded) comments by Lemongirl942 and User:Mduvekot, I contacted the estate of Sharon Christian to ask about some of the newspaper articles I recall seeing when I was a kid. Apparently Christian's executor has archived much of this, and has now put it on her website: http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/ (and no, I am not Christian's executor).

Contrary to some of the arguments presented by some editors, WP:ARTIST does not require that the work be in permanent collections or major museums.

WP:ARTIST can be fullfilled by evidence that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Christian's work was the main subject of a TV report, of multiple reviews in national newspapers and journals (evidence is provided for four), was honored by the Canadian Society for Water Colour painters through elected membership, was selected by the first lady of Canada to represent Canada, was selected by the Alberta Society for Artists to represent Canada on an international tour to Korea, was represented by two significant galleries in Calgary, was selected by Avon and used on their Nationally distributed Annual Christmas Card (twice), was used to illustrate a book (which was so popular it went on for a second edition), and can be found the permanent collection of the Alberta Art Foundation.

The evidence in the case of Christian clearly fulfills WP:GNG. GNG spell out the requirements, each of which I address below:

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Christian's work received significant coverage in Canada, at the national level, in multiple media formats including TV, newspapers, art journals, public exhibitions, and nationally distributed cards (such as the Avon annual Christmas card).

""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."

The evidence of Christian's notability is provided by reliable published sources.

""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."

There are multiple secondary sources, and they are of high quality and provide deep coverage of the artist.

""The Sources [3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.""

Contrary to the assumptions made by a number of editors, the GNG guidelines clearly spell out that the "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Because Christian worked largely before the rise of the internet, much of the evidence for her notability is in secondary sources that were widely read at the time, but are not available in on-line archives (e.g. newspaper articles and TV shows). The GNG guidelines clearly spell out that "Sources do not have to be ... written in English". This admits additional evidence in the case of Christian, as there are secondary sources in Korean advertising Christian's work, representing Canada. The GNG guidelines state that notability is furthered by having different sources authored by different people. Christian clearly meets this bar as there is evidence that many reporters and art historians acknowledged Christian's critical acclaim: Carol Fleming (Arts West), Brooks Joyner (Calgary Herald), Patrick Tivy (Calgary Herald), Zena Cherry (Globe and Mail), and at least one other person (author of Landmark magazine article). Christian was also represented by two separate widely recognized galleries.

""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."

All the evidence is independent of the subject; we are lucky in the case of Christian that her estate has made tracking down the non-primary sources easier than it would otherwise have been.

""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]"

With the "presumed" criterion, the GNG guidelines provide for editorial discretion; here I would caution editors who are keen to delete the article to remember that they themselves are subject to unconscious prejudice. The arguments for delete make this prejudice likely: For example, arguments such as a requirement that work be "a major museum like Royal Ontario Museum or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" perpetuate the widespread notion that Eastern Canada is the center of Canadian life; one result of this prejudice is the gross under-representation of artists from Western Canada in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should represent notability of people without geographic prejudice (and in Christian's case, she was very widely known in Western Canada, in Calgary and Vancouver).

I invite dispassionate editors like Lemongirl942! and User:Mduvekot! to change their vote. Christian was a very important figure in Western Canadian art. I say this as someone who has absolutely no vested interest: she was a famous artist when I was growing up, a celebrity known mostly in Western Canada, but also recognized at the National level. As a woman artist, and an artist from Western Canada, we must be cautious that we do not undermine the case for her because of our own prejudices (most artists on wikipedia are men, and the few Canadian artists are from Eastern Canada, Ontario or Quebec). Icareaboutart (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icareaboutart. I'm from Singapore, so I'm not sure what "geographic prejudice" you are talking about and how it applies to me. We judge people on the basis of how noted they have been. I had a very good look at the website you mentioned and the coverage is sparse at best - we need "significant coverage" in reliable, independent and secondary sources. Many of the sources are trivial mentions. Sources by an art gallery which is exhibiting her works are not independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability. This is the reason why we have WP:ARTIST. The museums I quoted are significant museums. - the fact that it happens in to be in one part of Canada is something which I cannot help. I see that some companies have bought her art, but we requires museums to do that. Believe me, I'm not able to see the claims of notability. The critical acclaim you are talking about would probably exists online (in some form) if it was in a major art journal. But I find it strange that I can't find a single instance of these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of the sources are trivial mentions." this is simply not true. The artist is the *focus* of every article, with the exception of the Globe and Mail piece, which also includes other artists. You can't find these sources because research is hard and requires more than the internet. You actually have to go into archives and dig stuff up. Please read through my rebuttal carefully. Icareaboutart (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that research requires more than a "sweep" of the internet. If this is all that research took, we wouldn't need wikipedia (or careful scholars who are capable of going into the archives (and have the time to do so) to find the non-primary (but pre-internet) sources. The problem at this stage is that the bulk of editors have ideas that are shaped by the ready access of lots of information on the internet, yet just because the internet has a lot of information, does not mean that it is a complete record. Somehow this basic fact is very hard to get across. The evidence is clear: Christian was an important artist, and this fact is clear to some people and not clear to others. The people to whom it is not clear have invented their own interpretations of what constitutes "significance" for the purposes of notability, and I think their interpretation is at odds with both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines provided by wikipedia. I've laid out the case plainly above; simple refutation of the evidence because you can't find it on the internet is not sufficient refutation. Please consider the evidence presented. At this stage I cannot expect editors who have chimed in after their cursory review to change their minds because they have too much ego invested in their initial [but wrong] decision. Icareaboutart (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. Suppose she is a significant artist, but the sources are not readily available on the Internet. Then you have this problem: the current article looks seriously b-l-o-a-t-e-d with tons of supposed "references" that aren't real references (real => read this,) meaning established Wikipedians here such as myself have to wade through all the junk to find your nuggets. Please remove the junk. Trim the article down to five (5) sentences and list your supposedly good references to back up each sentence -- that's my two cents if you wish to save this article -- do that, then ping me or write on my talk page, and I'll take another look. It's okay to care about art, but here, we care about Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment thanks to everyone for your comments on the wikipage about Sharon Christian. All the facts stated in the article are now supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Icareaboutart (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article creator, Icareaboutart, has just left a message on my talkpage, informing me of improvements to the article and that i vote keep on this afd, as a new editor they may not be aware of WP:CANVASSING, i will not be taking any more part in this discussion.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, @Coolabahapple: I have no intention of canvassing; my comment was left on your talk page in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia, see WP:CANVASSING: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". I would like to (re)direct the focus of the discussion on the central issue (the notability of the artist and her claim to a wikipage). Thank you. Icareaboutart (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to reviewing editor - article has been substantially cleaned up and several new references added since many of the editors here posted their comments. Please have a look. Hmlarson (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharon_Christian&oldid=1089520441"