Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ian Spoutz


 * 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. v/r - TP 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Eric Ian Spoutz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

New page. I'm skipping WP:PROD because there's some ambiguity. What I see is a page that basically plugs an art dealer, and much of the notability assertion is basically credits from places he's dealt with directly. While it's certainly something that he's dealt art to the Smithsonian Institute, I do not feel that this connotes notability - it would be a bit like stating a vintner is notable for selling bottles of wine to Barack Obama.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Looks like a vanity piece.  Weird thing to say, but it also bothers me that he is only 28 - how notable can you really be as an art dealer only a few years out of college? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. In order to be a notable art dealer, there are two criteria that must be met. First, the grade of the artists [and their work] that are represented. Second, the grade of the clients that are represented. Mr. Spoutz has obviously represented both important artists and clients as well as having a demonstrated track record as a museum curator with important institutions such as the Federal Reserve. In addition, he founded a recognized foundation for the visual arts. Fortunately, in determining the historic relevance of a subject, we do not discriminate by age, rather we judge by experience and credibility. To compare the subject to a purveyor of wine is unfounded. If the dealer who placed the works of art into the permanent collection of the Smithsonian is merely the peddler of a product, then wouldn't the artists themselves also be the creators of a lowly product produced simply for the government or institution's consumption, thus making them of no greater importance? It is a matter of hierarchy within the art world, therefore, it is evident that Mr. Spoutz is a qualifying subject of importance within that field. --Las98 (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Las98, but is he notable per our own guidelines, and can this be verified with reliable sources? This is the concern that, ultimately, I bring to the table for this discussion.  If you can change the article in such a way that I will change my mind - which, mind you, will be per those guidelines - then please, do it. I will happily retract this if you can.  Read through all of those articles, and for people in general (especially through the first one), check out WP:BIO.  In short, it is not merely the type and level of work that Mr. Spoutz has done that will garner him notability - to be frank, that amounts to nothing if it can't be backed up per our guidelines. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Ian Hornak. At first, I found it hard to believe that this wasn't a hoax - but we genuinely do seem to have a 28-year old who has been a noteworthy art dealer for nearly ten years. But what clearly allowed him to start his career so young was being Hornak's executor (and nephew) and, while he has had other noteworthy successes' many of his achievements to date seem to have been selling Hornak's work to major institutions. He could certainly do with a brief mention (which he seems not to have at the moment) in Hornak's article as a proponent of Hornak's work since Hornak's death but, unless someone can come up with some significant reliable sources, I doubt that he deserves his own article - yet. PWilkinson (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (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.