Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily L. Spratt (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I'm not going to salt this. Yes, it's been recreated a few times, but the last couple have been restorations by an admin. If it gets recreated again without demonstrating notability, we can revisit the salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Emily L. Spratt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was deleted as a result of unanimous consensus at Articles for deletion/Emily L. Spratt. Since then it has twice been deleted again as re-creation of content deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, and on both occasions it has been restored on the request of the creator of the article, who each time has stated that he has provided citations to answer the notability issues raised in that deletion discussion. There are indeed new citations, but they are not significantly better than the old ones: it is quality, not quantity, of references that matters. In my opinion the reasons given for deletion in the first discussion are just as valid now as they were then.

In view of the repeated deletions and restorations and the repeated claims of having provided better sources, I have written out an analysis of every one of the cited sources, more thoroughly than I would usually do. That analysis is provided below, but the TLDR-avoiding version is none of the cited sources is by any stretch substantial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources.


 * The sources currently cited in the article are:


 * 1) A YouTube video, not confirming content to which it is attached in the article, and not giving substantial coverage of her.
 * 2) Her profile page on the web site of her university.
 * 3) An article by her, not about her.
 * 4) An article which briefly quotes from her, but does not give any substantial coverage of her.
 * 5) A one page article which quotes from her briefly, giving a one-sentence actual quote ("Maybe in the future, with computer vision technology, you could actually have a pocket art historian") and a couple more sentences referring to her opinion.
 * 6) A report on a discussion, including a fairly brief summary of what Spratt said there.
 * 7) An article containing a one-sentence mention of her.
 * 8) An article by her, not about her.
 * 9) An interview conducted by her, not about her.
 * 10) A page about an exhibition, on the web site of the organisation holding the exhibition, in which the full and complete mention of Spratt is "Curated by Emily L. Spratt, Ph.D. candidate in art history at Princeton".
 * 11) A page which doesn't even mention her at all.
 * 12) An article by her, not about her.
 * 13) A speech by her, not about her.
 * 14) A source the title of which is given in the article as "Timithikan oi ethelontes ton mouseion", which appears to be a Romanisation of the Greek "Τιμήθηκαν οι εθελοντές των μουσειων" ("Honorable volunteers of museums"). Searches for the Romanised form found only this Wikipedia article, and searches for the Greek form found nothing at all, so it is impossible to assess this source. (I also tried various variations of the Greek, in case the original from which the Romanised form came was slightly different, but it made no difference.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per thorough nom and previous discussions. Fails WP:GNG, and lacks an award, position, or impact that would pass WP:PROF. Bakazaka (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe in a few years she will be notable, but not now. The award doesn't seem notable either. As the nom says, there was two (one) recent AFDs that decided delete. The coverage in 2005 that NDPlume cites didn't really last too long and since then ,as the nom states has been passing mentions and the like. JC7V  -constructive zone  22:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * note just fixing my vote rational. There was one previous AFD closed as delete and then the article was recreated twice afterward and deleted again twice. JC7V -constructive zone  23:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I contest the above reasons for the deletion of the Emily L Spratt page. The subject has a notable award from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture (I think the Hellenic Ministry of Culture counts as a significant government institution). Notice of this award appears in three Greek newspapers in 2005 and in each she is photographed as main subject. I found this on the subject's website, scanned on her press page: https://sites.google.com/view/emilylspratt/press. Given the crisis in Greece I wonder if those newspapers have not digitized their archives, nonetheless, those citations are indeed solid references. The Sonophilia interview is significant because Sonophiia is a well known think thank that is based in Austria. I watched that video and Spratt is interviewed as art and society expert and also asked about her opinions on different general matters. Also, the video from The Frick Collection, which I also viewed, has a lengthy introduction about the subject's position and credentials by the research director of the museum, which seems quite prestigious. I checked on the exhibition which is mentioned above. It also appears on a recent CBS Sunday Morning article and video segment and her name is cited there on CBS as being the curator of that exhibition on the CBS page. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-artificial-intelligence-turns-its-gaze-to-art/. If it is useful to know, I also follow AI and society subjects as a history of science expert and can say this person is definitely significant in that area.NDPlume (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is okay to link here, but a 2014 version of subject's CV posted to a Princeton website describes the award in question as "Award for outstanding volunteerism at the Byzantine and Christian Museum by the Federation of the Friends of the Museums (an association adjunct to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture), Athens, Greece." From that description it does not sound like a notable award from the Hellenic Ministry of Culture. Bakazaka (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I just looked up the award and that association was under the umbrella of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture before the Ministry of Culture merged to be the Ministry of Culture and Sports. In any case, the award is from the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens and that is a museum run by the state and therefore, officially by the Ministry of Sports and Culture, so this is definitely legit.NDPlume (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete she is still far short of having met the notability guidelines for acdemics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The subject is notable for being a pioneer in the new domain of Art and AI. RogerWilson (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Art and AI is not a "new domain" and someone born in 1984 cannot be a pioneer in something that predates them. I have no opinion at this time about the subject's overall notability but it certainly cannot be for that specific reason.  freshacconci  (✉) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is about her work with the deeplearning material with art and society that is significant, not AI at large, however that problematic term can be defined.NDPlume (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that women doing pioneering technology related things are so often omitted. As a history of science guy I can say this is truly a notable trend, even today. I really think this page should not be deleted.NDPlume (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt.low citations on GS show not a hope of passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
 * People can do all sorts of pioneering stuff, but it is not notable unless noted by others, and in this case it isn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

But it has been noted by others! Anyway, I will have to agree to disagree with the previous comment.NDPlume (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment GS citations are of little significance in the humanities, especially in out of the way fields like this.
 * Comparison of like with compares the performance of scholars in the same field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC).


 * to NDPlume and Roger,for WP:NPROF, I'm not seeing Spratt as being the go to by the media as an expert in a particular field. She is spread out in two different fields, both as quoted above were around long before she was born. JC7V -constructive zone  04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'm still getting the hang of writing encyclopedic entries and I don't want any of my articles to come across as puff pieces.RogerWilson (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Association of Computing Machinery is the gold standard for computer science. Subject being asked to be honorary guest editor on mag on computers and art for them is recognition of expert status/ authority in that area. I think subject could be more precisely defined as pioneer in connection of society with deep learning techniques for art and gan-generated art. AI is too problematic a term to use, it always is. Now it is often used as catch all for deep learning related things.NDPlume (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt an obviously promotional autobiography. The puffery really gets in the way here.198.58.175.190 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Lacks the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * keep, see my above stated commentsNDPlume (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2018 (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.