Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annika Connor

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Le Lapin Vert (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 3 March 2018 (→Annika Connor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Annika Connor

Annika Connor (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)

Apparently not notable by our standards, fails WP:ARTIST. Sourcing is very weak – interviews, blog-type sources etc; I removed some of the worst of them, but stopped when I realised that there's essentially nothing here. Someone on the HuffPost blog site named her as a "rising star". Wikipedia articles are reserved for those stars who have already risen, and thus have in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to say Keep on this one. Yes sources are not great but still sufficient to prove at least notability at the right side of the threshold for inclusion. Any other concern is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    She also covers WP:ARTIST per gallery solo shows in NYC.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is absolutely nothing here to say that this painter is notable. All coverage is routine and very low quality. There are about four barely acceptable sources, and by that I mean that they just barely qualify as sources. The majority of the coverage is interview-style and promotional in nature. Fails all notability tests, and especially WP:ARTIST on all counts.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Bratland has already been giving a good rationale why WP:ARTIST. Appears you ignore sourced gallery solo shows.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YES! I'm glad you mentioned those. Let's talk about the "solo shows"
  • The first solo show listed was at Bungalow 5, a furniture store. The "review" used as a source looks a lot like a paid advertisement or press release copy, as the review author has written over 15,000 articles for that publication. Wait-- look at the url: it is artnews.conteart.com, not artnews.com. Anyway, let's continue...
  • Next up is "The Hitchcock Kiss" at QF Gallery in the Hamptons. According to their site, which they have in all caps, "QUATTLEBAUM FORETICH GALLERY IS A CURATORIAL PROGRAM, ORIGINALLY HOUSED IN A HISTORIC HOME IN EAST HAMPTON FROM 2012-2014. CURRENTLY THE GALLERY EMPLOYS A MOVABLE, SHIFTING MODEL OF SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT FEATURE EMERGING AND ESTABLISHED ARTISTS, ARCHITECTS, CURATORS AND DESIGNERS." So it was a temporary gallery in the Hamptons. Ok...
  • Number three is a claimed solo show at the reputable Able fine Art Gallery NY. I see a few low-quality sources for this, so it might actually be verifiable. And Finally,
  • the last show at "untitled gallery" specifically says that she was featured in a group show.
In summary, this is just an exaggerated list of very very average shows that do more to prove she is not notable than they do to prove she is. You do not have to be much of a successful artist to get shows like these. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not canvassing; these are highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARTIST does not say one is notable once they have three solo shows. If it did, every Sunday painter who showed in tiny Cafes or popup galleries would be notable. Also, the claim that a significant profile in "highbrowmagazine.com" helps is just plain weak. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reading the guidelines right. If an artist has had solo shows a guideline doesnt have to specify that exactly three soli shows are notable. Possibly nitpicking on your part.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I missed the part of the guidelines where it says notability is established by exhibiting in furniture stores like Bungalow 5? Please point that part out to me.104.163.148.25 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Solo shows in notable art museums are evidence of notability, but solo shows in non-notable commercial galleries are not, since putting on such shows is their business. I do not consider Highbrow Magazine to be a reliable source for establishing notability of an artist, and this coverage looks like the product of a public relations campaign. Interviews do not establish notability because that coverage is not independent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:Cullen was pinged to come here.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged Cullen because he is a highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrator, who specializes in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I did not and will not, because I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with notifying someone of a discussion, especially an admin with significant experience.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why even put yourself in a position of having to defend a discussion notification? By appearances it's indistinguishable from votestacking. Out of hundreds of thousands of editors, two individuals. Isn't it sufficient that this discussion was listed on multiple arts and women related alerts? It seems unlikely an insufficient number of art or women topic experts have been notified, or that these two select individuals don't monitor any of the alerts here. I don't believe you intended anything nefarious, but appearance of votestacking is unavoidable, and it's a bell you can't unring. It's almost never a good idea to notify editors by name, rather than noticeboard or broadcast notices. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat: These are highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad you don't seem to be able to understand why the appearance of votestacking is a problem. If you can find more conventional ways of altering interested groups of discussions like this, I think you'll see see less drama and a smoother process. Pinging editors by name pointlessly and needlessly creates an atmosphere of suspicion. If you believe Wikipedia can't make sound consensus decisions without two specific experts, then how can you support the idea of such a project at all? The whole thing is built with the collective wisdom of hundreds of thousands of people, not two indispensable experts.

These repeated assertions without evidence, "I'm fair minded because I say so", "It's not canvassing because I say so", "This gallery is insignificant because I say so", "That magazine is insignificant because I say so." Any old editor is capable of making unsupported assertions, "because I say so". It's not convincing. And why should we even have to be having this spat? Use normal AfD alterts, post neutral notifications on interested noticeboards and not hand-picked users, and all this trouble is avoided. It makes no sense why you would insist on this. I hope you stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat a fourth time: These are two highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I felt the case needed more research than I was willing to give it. It's too bad you don't respond to Cullen, who answered your concerns. In terms of pointlessly and needlessly, I'll state a fifth time: These are two highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I felt the case needed more research than I was willing to give it. In terms of "I'm fair minded because I say so" I never said any such thing; "It's not canvassing because I say so" I never said any such thing; "This gallery is insignificant because I say so"; "That magazine is insignificant because I say so." I've never said or implied any such thing and have never even mentioned galleries. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, BabbaQ, and Dennis Bratland, I was pinged but I had no idea whatsoever how I would respond until I took a sincere look at the article and the available sources. Do either of you have any evidence that I am somehow biased regarding this topic? If I truly thought that this artist was notable at this time, I would fight to keep the article by improving it and adding sources. I am personally aware of at least half a dozen women artists with longer and better established careers that I do not consider notable enough at this point. Consider me an inclusionist philosophically who also believes in enforcing our notability standards and opposing rampant promotionalism. I wish this artist the best and hope that she will be universally considered notable as her career progresses. But not yet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Softlavender you have canvassed three editors so far to come here. Now I see that the third person was DGG which you left a personal note at about this article basically begging the editor to !vote Delete. This is starting to look really suspicious and votestacking. Messages like these are looking suspicious.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article was written by Kelizabethw, an SPA, who also uploaded the professional photograph (claimed to be "own work") [5] and therefore appears to be the subject's publicist. The rest of the article [6] was written by Tweebunny, another SPA. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only just. There does appear to be promotional intent and the text needs a bit of work. Possibly a COI notice should also be placed. Deb (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There's enough there to keep it under GNG. The Art News coverage and Whitehot article tips it for me. I wish, however, that there was more coverage of her. I hit the databases and didn't find anything to add from EBSCO, HighBeam or Newspapers.com. On Google Books, she is mentioned in a few books (one I can't access). I agree with Deb about placing a COI tag, especially with Softlavender's research about the editors on the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: One of three editors pinged or talk page contacted to come to this AfD to !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say that the WIR brigade (which I support and contribute to at times) is being taken in if they think this is a notable artist. This is just an artist who has taken some marketing classes and knows how to get her name and profile into a few middling publications. In short, she is trying to make a living in a digital world. That marketing might involve work as a voice actress, selling art on Saatchionline along with a hundred thousand others, publishing a book on Amazon about her artist friends, doing an interview with Luxurious Prototype, the online men's luxury magazine or KDHamptons, the Luxury Lifestyle Diary of the Hamptons, or getting a semi-decent profile in Grand Piano Passion, a magazine devoted to poeple with a passion for grand pianos. I do hope that editors can see the difference between this kind of coverage and, say, inclusion in permanent collections, exhibitions in reputable galleries and museums, and of course independent reporting and interest by good news sources. Wikipedia certainly has a problem with the dearth of articles on women. However that is not going to be helped by promoting truly non-notable persons on the thinnest of rationales as is happening above.104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, check out this offer on the Voice acting page. "Please note, Connor's paintings are also available for licensing if you are shopping for cover art for your books. Connor retains the copyrights to all her paintings and high res images of all of her works is available if a licensing deal is made. Please be in touch if you would like to discuss licensing any of Annika Connor's art for your book covers." This is not a notable artist, but rather a young artist trying to make a living. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) "WIR brigade" is the kind of ad hominem that says a lot more about you, and your agenda, than it does about anyone else. 2) There are uncounted hundreds of thousands of articles about privileged topics -- whites, men, westerners, recent topics, easily-located online topics, English language topics, etc -- as discussed in Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and they have not been subjected to anywhere near sufficient scrutiny. The number of borderline-notable or non-notable male artist bio articles numbers in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. If a group trying to correct systemic bias, like WIR, happens to succeed in keeping a handful of borderline notable articles about women, it pales in comparison to the many thousands of articles that will never even be nominated for deletion, or will be scrutinized only after several years have passed, for the simple reason that there are so many of them. In short, why not focus on whether this topic is or is not notable, and leave all the other baggage for another noticeboard? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that some women feminists call each other hags? CLaiming ad hoiminem is really off base, if you knwo what the latin translation is. It's an attack on a person, not a group. And, speaking as a contributor to the work of "WIR brigade", I did not mean it as an slight, as is clear by my other comments. I actually meant it as a kind of compliment, since if you follow their talk page, it is indeed a bit like a fire brigade. The point was the "WIRB" occasionally promotes non-notable subjects simply because they are women. Not often, but sometimes. I'm sorry you took it as anything else.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's time to let this go, but attacking this woman for the crime of self-promotion is so trite. Nobody minds when men are ambitious and self-promoting, but when women do it, they're attacked. One study described it as ambitious men being seen as "being more assertive, stronger, and tougher" while ambitious women were targets of "moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust)". Do we scrutinize every bio about a person who wrote good things about themselves on Linkedin.com? We're now skeptical of every painter who tries to sell their paintings? It's laughable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not attack on the artist, and indeed no attack. The issue is about supporting the inclusion of very marginally notable subjects with the intent of correcting systematic bias, as DGG sums it up nicely near the end of this discussion.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Cullen328 and the COI issues. While I agree with Megalibrarygirl that there might be adequate notability, we don't have the source quality to quite get there yet. Let's just call it WP:TOOSOON for now. Also, agree with Dennis Bratland about the ad hominem remarks. The baggage can go elsewhere, this discussion stands on its own. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An presumably promotional article about a very minor artist. There isn;t even any indication she is more than an amateur trying to sell her work. The criterion for WP:CREATIVE is significant critical discussion independent sources, or (if pertinent) works in the permanent collection of major museums, or both. She works in a genre which museums would collect if she were notable. There are no critical stud--the Art News item is a trivial review of a show, and the others are either not independent, such as a show brochure--which is always written by the artist of the artist's publicist-- or not in any conceivable sense reliable in this subject.Interviews are not independent sources for notability. Conceivably she may ecome notable, but not now. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need more coverage of women artists. There are thousands of notable ones that are not yet covered, and those are the ones to write.
I'm going to give a local plug here--if in the NYC area, come to the WM-NYC & A+F editathon at the Museum of Modern Art this Saturday and work on one. See the announcement: [7] (and the listing of other related events in the area this month at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/ArtAndFeminism 2018. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ, please learn the difference between WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASSING. DGG is an administrator who deals widely with AfDs and my message was neutral and mentioned only that the AfD was contentious. If the rhetoric by the IP and Dennis Brantland had not occurred, and the repeated accusations of canvassing made by you and Dennis had not occurred, I would not have felt to call on another administrator for additional clarity, but because of all that noise on this AfD, I felt that the administrator with the most experience with AfDs of any admin (and an ArbCom member to boot) would bring a careful eye to the matter. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contacting specific admins or editors are suspicious. And why contact these specific editors in particular. Their !votes will likely be discounted by the closing admin because you told them to come here. The votes from them are Delete,Delete,Weak Keep. It kind of speaks for itself really. I leave it at that.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's way better to assume good faith rather than challenging admins. Just saying. They are volunteers who are very, very unlikekly to be out to game the process.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please indicate, with diffs, where I "told" anyone to come here. Neutrally and briefly notifying or requesting input from knowledgeable and respected persons is not suspicious, as I explained above. "And why contact these specific editors in particular": I have already answered that question here [8] and here [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
anyone who is certain of what I will do in a marginal case will often be disappointed. I will look at anything people ask me to within my fields of interest, and I say what I think, without paying any attention to what they may have expected. You do not have to take my unsupported word for it--the very most recent item on my talk page is one where I did not give the response that was apparently hoped for. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you DGG. I am simply stating that contacting three editors about one AfD is canvassing in my opinion. The result Delete, Delete, Weak Keep is also quite telling but that is on you guys. I leave it at that. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as it is not accusing me , it should not be taken as accusing anyone who asks me to look at anything of bias. If anyone does ask me for such a reason, they are likely to be disappointed, and the editor who asked is experienced enough here to know that. I have specifically said, and now say again, that what I am interested in is borderline AfDs and I will be grateful for anyone who notifies me of one. Recently, I've been increasingly likely just to clarify the matters at issue and not !vote. But to Softlavendar and anyone else, admins do not get extra votes atAfDs, and arbs most certainly not; the relevant factor in asking someone here is that the person asked is aware of the issues and able to explain them,and consequently might be helpful in coming to some conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if all three highly experienced administrators had !voted "Strong Keep" you would not have made these accusations (repeated nine times so far)? That is what is "quite telling". Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A battleground mentality from you won't change the facts here. I am not the one who contacted these three editors, you where amd the result followed the pattern it did. Let's leave it at that.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please substantiate, providing diffs and exact quotations, how I am engaging in "battleground mentality". It is you who have made accusations of canvassing, repeated at least nine times, and repeatedly insinuated that requests for input were non-neutral or skewed, when in fact I've explained over and over why and how they were not. It seems that your real objection is that three neutral, highly experienced and highly respected administrators who specialize in AfD, and two out of three of whom specialize in AfD WP:RESCUE of articles on artists/women, did not !vote in exact sync with you. Softlavender (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A person can be fair and honest, and still be predictable. A random group of respected and neutral admins is going to give a much different result than a hand-picked group of respected and neutral admins. People have personalities, and when you know them well you can guess which ones you'd call on in a specific case. Of course they're all going to say they are totally fair. You can say you had no intentions of stacking the vote. But when you invite hand-picked editors to a discussion, that's canvassing. It looks bad. Outsiders have no idea whether to believe anyone when they affirm passionately that they are totally fair and neutral. You know who else says that? Biased people say that, too. It's meaningless. But an outside observer isn't going to have that problem in a discussion where the usual broadcast noticeboard notifications were followed, and nobody is known to have been invited by name. You can be deny having any bad intentions as vehemently as you want, but you can't shake the taint of illegitimacy that comes with canvassing.

Anyone who as been canvassed should ignore it. Going and !voting and then saying "You can trust me! You can trust me!" in a louder and louder voice doesn't remove the cloud of illegitimacy that comes with canvassed votes. You can't fix it just by saying "Don't worry" because when your objectivity is in doubt, saying "I'm objective" merely begs the question. You have to step back and let Wikipedia's crazy process run without any thumbs on the scale. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Dennis Bratland. The mentioned editors can claim to be as objective as they like. The problem is that they !voted after being pinged and talk page contacted to come here and !vote. That they say "You can trust me" seems kind of hollow. Anyway the closing user will see this and probably put very little weight to the canvassed !votes.BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for BabbaQ and Dennis Bratland: there's getting along with other people, and there's taking every opportunity to not get along and to assume people are against you. The former usually works best, generates synergies and builds trust. The latter just gets tiring. Just saying.104.163.148.25 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COI promotional article on a non-notable young artist with no significance at present and who fails WP:ARTIST by a long shot. To quote the second sentence of the Highbrow interview: "A staple on the New York social scene, Connor has spent years cultivating a reputation as a philanthropist, feminist, fashion icon and muse." This wiki article seems to be another attempt at cultivating an image -- as a significant artist. There is nothing about her art that is remarkable, and the very weak sourcing shows it. The fact that during the Trump era she has done some political-based works and thus cultivated some mentions does not change that. (PS: I said above I was unprepared to !vote in this AfD but the more I look into it, the more I agree with others: this is not a significant artist and we should not have self-promotional articles on non-notable artists.) Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly she is an "emerging" artist. If so, let's wait till she has emerged. -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

&Comment there's another general issue here. We have many relatively uncovered subjects in need of editors. Sometimes the lack of coverage is due to systematic bias. It is very important that people here try to correct it. The way to do so is to write articles on the most important uncovered people (or whatever), not on those people who one happens to notice or happens to have some personal interest in. Trying to write articles on people in such a field who are not notable does not help our coverage, but actively harms it--it encourages the misperception that other people in the field are likely to be also non-notable. If someone wants to try to decrease our coverage of some general topic, they can do so effectively by trying to write articles on obviously unencycopedic representatives of the subject. I'm not sure everyone interested in systematic bias is aware of the harm that trying to write and especially trying to defend borderline and non-notable topics in the area can do. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annika_Connor&oldid=828612267"