Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Sponer


 * 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. X clamation point  06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Anna Sponer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a self-taught artist with only local coverage. Beyond that, there's no evidence of notability for the level of wikipedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   — freshacconci  talk talk  22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While it is true that she is self-taught, Sponer is recognized as a Canadian artist not only by The Hamilton Spectator and other local sources but also by The Honourable Lincoln Alexander, Ontario Minister of Culture The Honourable Aileen Carroll and organizations such as the Canadian National Women's Soccer Team, McMaster Children's Hospital, The National Anti-Poverty Organization to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo Sponer (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No one is disputing that she is a working artist. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of every working artist in the world. There are policies and guidelines that all articles must follow, such as notability and verifiability. This artist, while no doubt successful, does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia policy. You should also read the guidelines around conflicts of interest.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am surprised that a successful working artist, who had already produced a large number of pieces (see artist's gallery) and is enjoyed by a variety of people and organizations from many different places (see acknowledgments), fails "notability" (see definition of notability). Things and events that make this artist notable are easily verifiable by any-one with web access and basic internet surfing skills. As for "conflicts of interest", the Anna Sponer article is objective and unbiased as it does not include any of my personal views or beliefs; it is open to edit by anyone who feels otherwise. Since there is no official/legal disclosure requirement to ensure that all posters are at arm's length from the Articles they are authoring in wikipedia, other than drawing conclusions from their user names, this notion of "conflicts of interest" is useless. For the record, I am not her. Jo Sponer (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, but you apparently share a last name. That means you have a connection to her, which means a conflict of interest. Anyone is permitted to edit any article, but there are policies and guidelines. You are free to edit this article, even if you are related (or for that matter the artist herself), but it is crucial that you understand the guidelines around possible conflicts, wwhich I was merely pointing out to you. The rest of my comments apply. Wikipedia does not go by a simple dictionary definition of notability, but a series of guidelines established by the community here.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Yes, but you apparently share a last name. That means you have a connection to her, which means a conflict of interest." Now that is some strange reasoning coming from someone looking for verifiability. Please let me re-assert, since there is no official or legal disclosure requirement to ensure that all posters are at arm's length from the Articles they are authoring in wikipedia, other than drawing conclusions from their user names, this notion of "conflicts of interest" is useless. Jo Sponer (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you actually read my comments and read the link for conflicts of interest? I never claimed there was official or legal disclosure requirements. Those are your words. The conflict of interest guideline is a behavioural guideline and as much as we must all assume good faith, all editors are expecting to edit in good faith. That's all. Of course I'm making asssumptions, you have the same last name (at this, WP:DUCK would apply). There appears to be a connection. I never claimed that there being a conflict of interest had anything to do with verifiablity. I suggested you read the guidelines, nothing more. This is, however, a distraction from the main points, which I stand by.  freshacconci  talk talk  19:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I've read your comment but I am afraid you misunderstood what I was saying regarding the guidelines around conflicts of interest. Simply stated, conflicts of interest should be determined by evaluating the content and the spirit of an article as opposed to looking at the author's username or alias since the authenticity can not be verified. I too stand by my earlier assertions that this article should remain in wikipedia and grow in time as will the artist whom it represents. Jo Sponer (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't misunderstand you. As I said, I mentioned that you should read the conflict of interest guidelines. Nothing more. That in itself was not a comment on the artist or the article, and I'm not certain why you're jumping to those conclusions. But enough has been wasted on this point. As for your last commment, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't wait for the artist to "grow in time." She needs to be notable now. If some day she becomes notable and her achievements go beyond the local, and there is sigificant, non-trivial third-party coverage, the article can be recreated (should it be deleted after this AfD discussion). The Hamilton Spectator is not a significant-enough source on its own.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Freshacconci Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:N.  Also note the apparent COI. Themfromspace (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions Is there any way to save this entry or it just fails that badly in the WP:N department? Could, for instance, references to other notable Italo-Canadians or notable entities from Racalmuto help? Jo Sponer (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that. It would need eg reviews in specialist art press etc for exhibitions, participation in major shows like biennales etc - WP:CREATIVE is the relevant sub-guideline. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jo Sponer (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - There is the Hamilton Spectator article in the article, and this article indicating her inclusion in a juried show at the Hamilton Art Gallery. But this puts it just under the bar of notability for me.  A bit more coverage and I would be swayed to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; by the way there is photographic evidence on the artist's site under exhibits. She's been included in this juried show at the Hamilton Art Gallery for three consecutive years. The show is already open to the public, as indicated on the AGH web calendar. Jo Sponer (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:16, 18 February 2009 (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.