Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Watson

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 delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability is achieved. The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Watson[edit]

Sara Watson (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)

Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Consider the three bullet points there:

  1. Do reliable sources cover her only in the context of a single event? Yes—her car.
  2. Does the person remain a low-profile individual? Well... three years later, do we have anything else to say about her?
  3. Is the event significant? I doubt an article on the car could stand on its own.

So why keep the article—to compare her to Julian Beever or Disappearing Model? That's the question, now, isn't it? --BDD (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not such a clear case, because she isn't a low-profile individual, but I can't find any evidence of lasting notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been asked to participate as part of my final adoption test. Please let me know if I am out of order or too verbose.
    • Sara Watson is still at the begining of her career - few artist get this kind of mass media coverage twice. I do not see a sufficcent WP:BEFORE presented in the AFD nomination - pray expand on the scope of research done prior to launching this discussion?
    • About WP:BLP1E. Looking over the actual policy your argument has some holes. The media interest in the invisible car has not disappeared as would be expected of a one shot event like an exhibition. This article is not new - over 12 editors have worked on this article in a time frame of three years. There is also 8 edits to this article this year - this is supporting evidence of continued significance of the subject within our community contradicting clause 3 of WP:BLP1E as it is interpreted here.
    • This also looks like a case where the artwork produced is culturaly and concpetualy significant. There are other artists with one influential work of art. This for me put the nail in the coffin of the WP:BLP1E arguement - which appears to be invoked out of context and does not apply here.
    • As a follower of the gender gap mailing list - I feel that removing articles about young women who have gained popular acclaim may work to excerbate the Gender Gap and be disruptive to the goals of Wikipedia. While I am not aware of a policy per say on this subject having more articles of this nature is of strategic importance in this area. OrenBochman (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your contribution, Oren. I've got two comments and a question for you. First, WP:BEFORE doesn't say anything about presentation in an AFD nomination. It just means I have to have done some research before nominating, which I did. For example, the first two pages of Google results for sara watson artist are from 2009 (or about someone else). I'm also not finding anything in JSTOR or Google Scholar. Second, while I appreciate your final point, it sounds like a WP:ILIKEIT argument, which you'll see is listing as a type of argument to avoid. My question for you, then: could you cite some examples of artists with articles with only one influential work of art? Those would be useful for comparisons. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that three comments. Recent edits to the article are probably not a good gauge of the subject's notability (indeed, plenty of articles with much more work on them have been deleted). They may be a result of its use as an example in the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill. That's actually how I found it. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about WP:ILIKEIT, I plan to start a major Glam Project and this little discussion is an eye opener on current attitudes on art. Since this is my homework perhaps I should work harder for more credit.
I asked about your prior invesitgation not because I thought you had not searched - you mentioned that you did I wanted to get a better understanding of what you claim. All you are realy claim so far is that you found nothing new in the top 20 Google results. For this particular search term it means next to nothing. There are some other people called Sarah Watson on the net getting much more coverage, and the story on the car is an internet meme so it would be surprising to find anything in google which is new and does not mention the car. However not finding a needle in a haystack don't prove it's not there... P.S. Jstor is almost exclusively reprints of old scholarly articles - so no surprise there either. Google Scholar I know less about but clearly it is not the place to find info on contemporary art. Still Google filetered for time has a great many items on the car.
These post sources indicate that this penomena has since been covered in a book and that this meme is still circulating on the web and that the original claim made in this. Clearly not an isolated even but an a significant ongoing phenomenam.

Regarding some other unique works of art:

  • Hm. All of those sources are blogs, which aren't necessarily invalid, but there are problems with using them as WP:RS. And WP:ARTIST says the piece should be "the subject of an independent book," which a mention in Ripley's Believe It Or Not isn't going to satisfy. I'm not too familiar with Duchamp myself, but a quick look at his article suggests he was known for much more than one piece. As for one-hit wonders, popular music is more notable than art, like it or not. Just as some sports are more notable, and thus have lower bars for inclusion. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these are blogs etc. There are some WP:RS from the coverage in the BBC from the original release. The Blogs are not being used to source anything in the article only to establish that the "Car" is not a single event - but has ongoing significance so not being RS is not relevant. The level of proof you are requiring - academic is non-normative and could be used to delete practicaly any BLP. Also since one hit wonders are not sourced with academic sources from google scholar so requiring them here is WP:Pointy
  • Regarding different level of notability where did that come from - it sounds like more like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT off policy argument.
  • To sum up:
    • I have rebutled the original deletion argument by showing that it was based on inadequate WP:Before and cannot hold water.
    • Specificaly - I have provided evidence that the notability of this individual is derived from a culturaly significant art work which has ongoing interest years after it has been released.
  • I have demonstrated that by normative standards this is as good as any article on an artists being included for a single one art work -- more notable since most have risen to fame by selling lots of copies and this was not a commercial endavour whose media coverage was finaced by a music label nor fueled by sales.
OrenBochman (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OrenBochman's plea above doesn't compensate the fact that 1. the artwork Sara Watson created didn't have a huge international press coverage, maybe some local coverage (nothing found in Google News' archives though), and 2. Sara Watson hasn't created any other major work, and she is still in school. Patience makes perfect. Delete! Rubyface (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She could be notable by WP:ARTIST if she's created an artwork that's received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to people who're famous due to creating a single art work/novel/play/etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed WP:ARTIST, and I don't think there's much of a case there. #1 is out of the question. #2 doesn't work either; she didn't invent or pioneer trompe-l'œil in any sense. As for #3, has the car been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? I may be misreading that, but that sounds like scholarly sources to me. If I'm right, that won't do either. And as for #4, "significant critical attention" is pretty subjective. The car made a splash in 2009, but it doesn't look like it made a lasting impact. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actualy she has innovated trompe-l'œil by using it on a found object in a disruptive format. Not in a classical sense of a wall painting or an image. Do you know other examples of trompe-l'œil statues ? OrenBochman (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E. Yes, an artwork she created received a considerable amount of passing media attention, but she has not demonstrated long-term notability (and neither has the artwork). I sympathise with OrenBochman's concerns about the Wikipedia 'gender gap', but that's an argument for creating and maintaining more articles on notable women, not keeping articles on non-notable women like this one. Robofish (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The more consideration I give to WP:BLP1E, I find it to be a loophole that should be removed from Wikipedia. Either the subject is notable or it is not, person or otherwise. So the question then becomes is the event itself notable? There are no sources available which show that this individual is notable, and the same applies to the art project she is associated with at this time. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Lacks the lasting coverage needed to establish notability. Her invisible car work attracted attention, but as a work of art, has not sustained the coverage needed to establish as work so notable that as a single work, establishes teh notability of the artist. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sara_Watson&oldid=1071971808"