Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Cruse


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Julie Cruse

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Claims enough importance to pass speedy A7, but in my opinion does not actually have any. A graduate student, candidate for a MFA in dance a/c her own university bio; notability would be in dance, not scholarship. Presenting her work at conferences is not notability. The only refs about her actually are only peripheral mentions, and are internal to her university   DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also looked at references and did not find significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article meets WP:BASIC.  Her pedagogical work has been covered in several news articles, periodicals, and trusted dance networks.  DGG, Cruse completed her MFA.  She is now a doctoral researcher on educational projects that are published on in major resources, which  merits her as a scholar.  Danceengine (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)danceengine
 * Comment. In order to meet the WP:BASIC criteria, the subject requires significant and reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article is not supported through significant, reliable sources. Some refs mention the subject in passing, while others are unreliable, as blogs. Notability of scholars need to meet criteria found at WP:ACADEMIC, of which the subject does not qualify. Cindamuse (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. The article claims her notability as an innovator in cutting edge dance education and economy.  She is a scholar, but this article claims no notability in that regard.  In terms of outside resources, the blogs are written by internationally respected artists and theorists.  The field of dance is impoverished, so most dance is poorly covered by media in comparison to other arts - thus blogs and networks have become a major resource for publicity in the dance field.  This is confirmed by the fact that the #1 school for dance in the country, The Ohio State University Department of Dance, recently got on board with the networks to indeed keep abreast of significant movements within the field.  That being said, Cruse's credibility is validated by the numerous institutions and arts organizations who have invited her to lecture and do workshops in such a condensed period of time.  "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)."   Danceengine (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)danceengine
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. No substantial coverage about the subject to pass WP:GNG. Fials WP:ACADEMIC either. This site in which the subject's interview appeared does not seem to be a reliable source. Salih  ( talk ) 13:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's certainly written and cited in a style that's not very encouraging for keeping it. For example, this  page is cited to support the claim (made by Danceengine ) that Ms. Cruse "co-founded a scholarship".  The page makes no mention of her, however, even as a donor.  A claim is made that she received an Ohio Arts Council grant.  No source is cited.  Some claims of presenting her dance technology work seem verifiable only in one  of three venues mentioned in the same sentence, from web searches.  Claims that she actually has any dance technology are cast into doubt by her own blog, which characterizes choreobot (and/or VIKKI) as an "artificial intelligence simulation" (i.e., not actual AI software) and as a "concept" based on a "performance."  I.e., there's scant evidence of any actual original software; perhaps this is conceptual art, in which imagining that there's some such software is part of the creation.  This blog interview  is apparently used to support the claim of having performed in work by Jeff Lovett, but that interview makes no mention of any particular performance.  The WP bio claims she was "an Ohio University Outstanding Alumni in Innovation" (sic), but the source cited  says she hadn't graduated when the article was written, which I'd say disqualifies anyone from being considered an alumnus, much less an outstanding one.  Worse, from Google searches, it appears that "Outstanding Alumni in Innovation" is a unique phrase invented by, well, Julie Cruse.  In short, I think if you stripped this article of all claims not supportable by reliable sources, you'd be left with very little, and with essentially nothing clearing the bar for Wikipedia notability.  On the other hand, weeding out all the unsupported claims might finally clarify the issue of notability, in Julie Cruse's favor.  Since Danceengine seems to be a huge fan of Julie Cruse, perhaps she could undertake the gardening task, the better to save the bio from deletion? Yakushima (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment above. Yakushima (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2010 (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.