Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Anawalt

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Anawalt

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sasha Anawalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As mentioned previously, article was created by WANAWALT. This may be William Anawalt, Ms. Anawalt's husband, and also the creator of the page for Francis Cunningham, Ms. Anawalt's father. This may be an attempt to artificially raise Ms. Anawalt's profile and internet presence and is likely in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Beyond the article's questionable creation, Ms. Anawalt does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article is basically describing how she is a professor who created many programs at USC, but there is no additional information that supports how those programs or her teachings were notable, distinguished, uniquely successful, or accomplished in any way. It does not appear Ms. Anawalt pioneered a unique method that broke ground in her field, was praised by fellow academics or journalists for her work, or that there is a stable of notable alumni who praise her or attribute their success to her teachings. It appears that Ms. Anawalt is a college professor and that alone does not merit its own page.

The article also lacks citation with multiple paragraphs not being attributed to any sources. There is nothing to verify sentences like "For the next four years, Anawalt reviewed dance in mini-malls, church basements, gymnasiums and on the Los Angeles streets, giving dancers and performances in these unconventional venues as much attention as those in the city's established concert halls and bastions of official culture." Beyond the lack of citation, the sentence is basically saying that Ms. Anawalt wrote about dance for a newspaper (it is unclear if she was on the paper's staff), which alone does not merit its own Wikipedia page. Plenty of arts and dance journalists do not have their own Wikipedia pages, how is Ms. Anawalt any different?

For this sentence, "In 2009, Anawalt resigned from the Pasadena, Calif. Arts and Culture Commission after the commission refused to display two pieces of public art," this is just the NYT describing how she quit a job. There is also no citation for this sentence, "She is the recipient of a Citizen Ambassador award from the City of Los Angeles and a Literary Arts Award from the Pasadena Arts Council." There has to be something about her own journalistic career that is uniquely accomplished or notable that can be verified from additional sources to merit page creation.

The only item included on Ms. Anawalt's page that may appear to merit page creation is her writing of the Joffrey book which was adapted into a PBS documentary. However, writing a book alone does not serve as merit for its own page, the book itself needs to have met the notability requirement, which the Joffrey book does not appear to beyond initial reviews published several decades ago. Deeper examination of the article shows that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability factors. Another way of saying this is that if this page never existed for Ms. Anawalt, would anyone have noticed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O811RT1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per your description, the subject seems to meet the notability of WP:AUTHOR #3. And, just so you are aware, it isn't a page, it's an article. Wikipedia users have pages. Subjects have articles. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This statement of yours is false: "However, writing a book alone does not serve as merit for its own page, the book itself needs to have met the notability requirement, which the Joffrey book does not appear to beyond initial reviews published several decades ago." Writing a book that received multiple reviews is grounds for creating an article for the book and possibly the author too. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Authors who publish new books will receive reviews, but the authors and the books themselves often fade into obscurity, often due to lack of notability. Has there been substantial discussion about the Joffrey film or book since their initial release? Has the book been cited by other dance authors, writers, and arts professionals in their own books and films? The Joffrey Ballet would be notable to have its own Wikipedia page as being the subject of the film, but not necessarily the author. Also, more clarification and citations are needed if the book was "adapted" into a film, or if the book was more background research into creating the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b (talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter how old the reviews are. It matters that she received significant coverage for it. That is the standard on Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Read the sources linked in the article if you need clarification on the book to film; I and at least some of the others here do not. Last thing: If you are the nominator, please sign in. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify an article. The conflict of interest in the creation should fully and permanently cause us to delete the article until someone without a conflict of interest deems this a subject worth creating. The rule against creating articles on your self should equally apply to any family member you knew while they were alive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the way it should work, but it does not work that way with current policy. The COI is not really relevant to determining notability. Possibly (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is if it the creation of said page is to intentionally pay homage or raise the profile of Ms. Anawalt. People who Google her now will come across this page and believe Ms. Anawalt to be a notable figure simply because the page exists. And the existence of said page can help Ms. Anawalt or her relatives in their own personal endeavors, such as a way of encouraging prospective students to enroll in her academic program, or raising Ms. Anawalt's profile for any other professional or personal aim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b (talk • contribs)
I think this comment is by the nominator, who was not logged in. Similarities include: “Ms. Anawalt,” “page” (rather than “article”), “raising the profile”/”raise the profile.” As there was no vote, I am not accusing of malice/sockpuppetry per se—just pointing out that the person is very green. If this is you, O811RT1, There is nothing inherently wrong with writing an article to pay homage. A good number of articles I began were to pay homage, in a way, to notable people. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, also they do not sign their posts like the nominator. If not, User:2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b, would you mind please sharing how on Earth you found this AfD to make your very first post/edit to Wikipedia? Do you have a connection to Sasha Anawalt or to her father Francis Cunningham? Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject of the article has more than a few mentions that I can turn up in Google scholar and her being the subject of the PBS series would lend notability. The conflict of interest is a bit troubling however... Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy enough to remove anything promotional/resumelike so that the COI would not be an ongoing problem. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Nominator: Please sign your nom, and you need to notify the creator of the articles you have nominated on their talk page. Netherzone (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2 to Nominator: O811RT1, It seems that you do not have a User Page nor a Talk Page, and that you have only made about a dozen edits to the encyclopedia. This nom was your fifth edit. It might be a good idea to please read up on how the AfD process/procedure works, the criteria for notability in different fields, and the policy related guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sasha_Anawalt&oldid=997016744"