- 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. Per consensus following article improvements. Philg88 ♦ talk 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sheila Cameron (artist)
- Sheila Cameron (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The existence of this person and their work has been verified. However, there is no indication as to how this Artist is notable. If this article is to be kept it needs some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. 
'
Olowe2011
Talk 04:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. (I am the creator of the article.) Meaning no offense, I believe that Olowe2011 is using a different definition of notability than Wikipedia uses when they say Sheila Cameron's notability has not been established. Wikipedia's standard for articles about people is that " People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis in original) Olowe2011 concedes that such sources are referenced in the Sheila Cameron (artist) article, but is refusing the preumption of notability that the guideline says should be granted. Their objection, based on our conversation on my talk page, seems to be that they personally do not consider Sheila Cameron's work to be important. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't consider important (especially a lot of sports- and reality-TV-related articles) but I acknowledge that Wikipedia's standard for notability, and not my personal feelings about whether the subject of an article is interesting, should be the standard by which an article's notability should be judged. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. - That would depend on what you claim significant coverage means. Simply because the article has a lot of references does not satisfy the general common sense definition of significant coverage. Like I said, anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery and then find themselves in articles related to that expedition. That does not alone qualify an article to be notable. In order to be notable it needs to show notability within the article regardless of coverage. As it stands there are no claims in the article that would suggest this Artist is notable. Just to add I have never seen or heard of this artist or her work in my life. The judgement is based on a quick skim read of the article and nothing content wise suggests that she is anything notable above any other typical artist.
Olowe2011
Talk 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response. — I do not think the meaning of "significant coverage" in the notability standard is as ambiguous as you make it out to be, Olowe2011; it means that the article (or book chapter or television segment or whatever) must be entirely or substantially about the subject of the Wikipedia article, and not merely make passing mention of them. There are three sources cited in the article that meet that standard:
- • Bentley, Brett (13 June 2013). "To hell and back: The tale of an artist". The Union.
- • Kellar, Tom (25 March 2012). "Artist, blogger and mom finds voice, opportunity to share it in Nevada County". The Union.
- • "Website hopes to 'free Katie'". The Guardian. 14 June 2005.
- I'm also concerned by your repeated statements (here and on my talk page) that "anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery" as a basis for questioning the notability of this article. You have offered no evidence of such a practice anywhere, much less in this case, and the fact that Ms. Cameron's gallery showings have mostly been curated and/or themed group shows tends to indicate such a pay-for-display scheme has not been involved here. Please remember to
assume good faith about other users. And please also consider that whether you have heard of someone, or think they are intreresting, are not valid bases for deleting a Wikipedia article that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —
GrammarFascist
contribs
talk 18:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Hello again User:GrammarFascist. I find it fitting that I do indeed yield to the fact that you feel this article is verified by sources. As a matter of fact I completely agree with you that you have done the correct thing by including evidence to verify the existence of this artist and her work. However, what I do question is why this article is notable. In layman's term why is this artist defined from other artists and what makes her deserving of an article in this encyclopaedia. During this discussion you may have decided to take a tone which pushes policy but in this I will appeal to your better of common senses. Let us think for a moment of the reader. It would be prudent to suggest that as an outsider to this topic, subject area and article my views on how the article reads may hold truer and proper on the scale of impartiality than yourself therefore resulting in my views being less swayed towards one side or the other. By reading this article and how it is written, currently I get the distinct impression that you have certainly provided for the fact this artist exists and that she might have attention from the few sources you have given. But in the very same reading it is my consideration that not one single sentence indicates true and common sense based notability. The simple question is does any statement in this article suggest notability - the honest and truthful answer is as it stands - No. Of course this opinion is open to change based on such statements making their way into the article and I am in no way set on retaining this deletion request if such notability can be indicated for the benefit of our readers. In the kindest regard Olowe2011 Talk 19:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response I still do not agree that what you are calling a "common sense based notability" standard is appropriate for evaluating Wikipedia articles. It is entirely subjective, and thus difficult for different people to reach agreement about. The fact that you have never heard of someone does not mean that they are therefore not notable; you probably have never heard of the most popular actors in Venezuela or the Philippines, or the world record-holders for highest scores in curling or cricket — I know I haven't — yet those people are notable for those very reasons. In this case, Sheila Cameron's work, in particular her creation of "Free Katie" and her being personally challenged by a notable art critic, has been notable enough to be covered by multiple independent sources. The fact that the articles were written is itself proof of notability, because if Sheila Cameron's work were not notable, it would not have been written about.
- As a side note, while she has a Wikipedia account at SheilaCameronArtist, the artist herself has chosen to recuse herself from this discussion, just as she has refrained from editing the article about her directly. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 22:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:GrammarFascist So basically she created an article for herself? Okay then. At no point have I said that the reason I do not deem this notable is due to the fact I have not heard of her. As very clearly stated its due to the fact there are no statements in the article that do in fact suggest notability. Olowe2011 Talk 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:GrammarFascist I smell a rat here due to the fact this is clearly an autobiography which has been requested to be made by the person who is subject to it. The worrisome component to this is those who clearly knew this before creating the article on her behalf. I will stand to make one thing clear now and that is if anything funny is going on it should end now and it would be a good idea to request deletion yourself because I do not have any issues with bringing this up with administrators or escalating it further than them if needed. It is completely unacceptable that anyone would get a request to create an article by someone who is clearly subject to the article then dispute notability to such a degree when absolutely no statement of notability or even significance has been made. I am a no tolerance editor. This will be my final word on this discussion. Olowe2011 Talk 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
* Comment - I agree with
Olowe2011 on this, and join him in being a bit twitchy as you did work very closely with
SheilaCameronArtist as per the
lengthy discussion on her talk page. Keeping on track with the point of this AfC (discussion on article, not editor), I believe that although the article is well written, it struggles to assert notability however could be improved.
samtar (
msg) 23:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. samtar ( msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
samtar (
msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- GrammarFascist I have recently learnt that my edits which involved replacing the template with speedy deletion are wrong so I am sorry for those. However, I do think its troubling that you created an article someone who is clearly the subject of the article. The issue of notability is still an issue here. Please note that I have deeply considered your effort when editing this article and it does cause me problems to propose getting rid of it but we should look to a bigger picture and that is keeping Wikipedia an encyclopaedia rather than a directory. Many people are artists but that alone does not make them notable on Wikipedia. Olowe2011 Talk 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Borderline notability, just edged over the line by the "Free Katie" stuff, but I could be convinced otherwise. BMK ( talk) 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I maintain that I have done nothing wrong in creating the article under discussion at the request of the subject. Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part so that people who have a conflict of interest, particularly people who would themselves be the subject of an article or who are members of the company or organization that would be the subject of the requested article, can avoid the problems inherent to creating such articles themselves. SheilaCameronArtist made her request at the Teahouse, but that was not judged an inappropriate venue by any other Teahouse volunteers. As for her having pointed me to some of the sources used in the article, I don't see how that is a problem provided that I evaluated each source for reliability and for its appropriateness for inclusion in the article — which I did. I did not simply write an article "to order" without considering Wikipedia standards and policies. Indeed, all the artist contributed were possible sources and a couple of factual corrections; she did not draft the article, as the conversation on her talk page shows. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Folks, let's get back to the issue of WP:GNG and drop the issues of the subject requesting an article about herself and GrammarFascist creating the article. Some of the accusations, both against GrammarFascist and the subject herself, are unsupported and border on WP:BLP violations or personal attacks. In any event, it's a distraction to the appropriate discussion of the subject's notability and will not assist the closing administrator in assessing consensus.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ Courcelles: Sorry to disrupt you but oversight here is a good idea due to bias and a few other issues which are mentioned elsewhere Olowe2011 Talk 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment As requested, "some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines" are now done. w.carter -Talk 13:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Add comment And just for the record, this is hardly the first (or the last) article to have been created after someone with COI has been at the Teahouse asking for help. Editors there do an independent check (which can be rather ruthless) to see if the subject is notable, and if it is hey why not. I specifically remember the request for Andrea Nye that went from help-cry to article in a matter of hours. w.carter -Talk 09:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the issue here is notability. And in terms of notability, the sources appear to be there, even within the existing article, to show in-depth coverage, from a variety of sources, and not simply local coverage (although there's quite a bit of that). Onel5969 TT me 17:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I've been neutral so far, just fixing up the article in case it was kept, but I did a search to check how far her fame had reached, and when I found her name in an article in one of the major Swedish newspapers, I think that points to some notablility. Article is now included as a ref. w.carter -Talk 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as this seems acceptable and has enough sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I was on the fence at first (refs weren't great), but W.carter's edits have pushed me over towards keep. Notability clearly and resoundingly established. Primefac ( talk) 00:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep due to recent improvements to the article that establish notability. clpo13( talk) 09:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I've struck my previous comment. With new additions (thank you W.carter), the article is definitely notable. samtar ( msg) 10:04, 29 September 2015 (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.
- 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. Per consensus following article improvements. Philg88 ♦ talk 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sheila Cameron (artist)
- Sheila Cameron (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The existence of this person and their work has been verified. However, there is no indication as to how this Artist is notable. If this article is to be kept it needs some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. '
Olowe2011
Talk 04:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. (I am the creator of the article.) Meaning no offense, I believe that Olowe2011 is using a different definition of notability than Wikipedia uses when they say Sheila Cameron's notability has not been established. Wikipedia's standard for articles about people is that " People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis in original) Olowe2011 concedes that such sources are referenced in the Sheila Cameron (artist) article, but is refusing the preumption of notability that the guideline says should be granted. Their objection, based on our conversation on my talk page, seems to be that they personally do not consider Sheila Cameron's work to be important. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't consider important (especially a lot of sports- and reality-TV-related articles) but I acknowledge that Wikipedia's standard for notability, and not my personal feelings about whether the subject of an article is interesting, should be the standard by which an article's notability should be judged. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. - That would depend on what you claim significant coverage means. Simply because the article has a lot of references does not satisfy the general common sense definition of significant coverage. Like I said, anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery and then find themselves in articles related to that expedition. That does not alone qualify an article to be notable. In order to be notable it needs to show notability within the article regardless of coverage. As it stands there are no claims in the article that would suggest this Artist is notable. Just to add I have never seen or heard of this artist or her work in my life. The judgement is based on a quick skim read of the article and nothing content wise suggests that she is anything notable above any other typical artist.
Olowe2011
Talk 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response. — I do not think the meaning of "significant coverage" in the notability standard is as ambiguous as you make it out to be, Olowe2011; it means that the article (or book chapter or television segment or whatever) must be entirely or substantially about the subject of the Wikipedia article, and not merely make passing mention of them. There are three sources cited in the article that meet that standard:
- • Bentley, Brett (13 June 2013). "To hell and back: The tale of an artist". The Union.
- • Kellar, Tom (25 March 2012). "Artist, blogger and mom finds voice, opportunity to share it in Nevada County". The Union.
- • "Website hopes to 'free Katie'". The Guardian. 14 June 2005.
- I'm also concerned by your repeated statements (here and on my talk page) that "anyone can pay an amount of money to get their artwork posted in a gallery" as a basis for questioning the notability of this article. You have offered no evidence of such a practice anywhere, much less in this case, and the fact that Ms. Cameron's gallery showings have mostly been curated and/or themed group shows tends to indicate such a pay-for-display scheme has not been involved here. Please remember to
assume good faith about other users. And please also consider that whether you have heard of someone, or think they are intreresting, are not valid bases for deleting a Wikipedia article that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —
GrammarFascist
contribs
talk 18:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Hello again User:GrammarFascist. I find it fitting that I do indeed yield to the fact that you feel this article is verified by sources. As a matter of fact I completely agree with you that you have done the correct thing by including evidence to verify the existence of this artist and her work. However, what I do question is why this article is notable. In layman's term why is this artist defined from other artists and what makes her deserving of an article in this encyclopaedia. During this discussion you may have decided to take a tone which pushes policy but in this I will appeal to your better of common senses. Let us think for a moment of the reader. It would be prudent to suggest that as an outsider to this topic, subject area and article my views on how the article reads may hold truer and proper on the scale of impartiality than yourself therefore resulting in my views being less swayed towards one side or the other. By reading this article and how it is written, currently I get the distinct impression that you have certainly provided for the fact this artist exists and that she might have attention from the few sources you have given. But in the very same reading it is my consideration that not one single sentence indicates true and common sense based notability. The simple question is does any statement in this article suggest notability - the honest and truthful answer is as it stands - No. Of course this opinion is open to change based on such statements making their way into the article and I am in no way set on retaining this deletion request if such notability can be indicated for the benefit of our readers. In the kindest regard Olowe2011 Talk 19:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response I still do not agree that what you are calling a "common sense based notability" standard is appropriate for evaluating Wikipedia articles. It is entirely subjective, and thus difficult for different people to reach agreement about. The fact that you have never heard of someone does not mean that they are therefore not notable; you probably have never heard of the most popular actors in Venezuela or the Philippines, or the world record-holders for highest scores in curling or cricket — I know I haven't — yet those people are notable for those very reasons. In this case, Sheila Cameron's work, in particular her creation of "Free Katie" and her being personally challenged by a notable art critic, has been notable enough to be covered by multiple independent sources. The fact that the articles were written is itself proof of notability, because if Sheila Cameron's work were not notable, it would not have been written about.
- As a side note, while she has a Wikipedia account at SheilaCameronArtist, the artist herself has chosen to recuse herself from this discussion, just as she has refrained from editing the article about her directly. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 22:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:GrammarFascist So basically she created an article for herself? Okay then. At no point have I said that the reason I do not deem this notable is due to the fact I have not heard of her. As very clearly stated its due to the fact there are no statements in the article that do in fact suggest notability. Olowe2011 Talk 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:GrammarFascist I smell a rat here due to the fact this is clearly an autobiography which has been requested to be made by the person who is subject to it. The worrisome component to this is those who clearly knew this before creating the article on her behalf. I will stand to make one thing clear now and that is if anything funny is going on it should end now and it would be a good idea to request deletion yourself because I do not have any issues with bringing this up with administrators or escalating it further than them if needed. It is completely unacceptable that anyone would get a request to create an article by someone who is clearly subject to the article then dispute notability to such a degree when absolutely no statement of notability or even significance has been made. I am a no tolerance editor. This will be my final word on this discussion. Olowe2011 Talk 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
* Comment - I agree with
Olowe2011 on this, and join him in being a bit twitchy as you did work very closely with
SheilaCameronArtist as per the
lengthy discussion on her talk page. Keeping on track with the point of this AfC (discussion on article, not editor), I believe that although the article is well written, it struggles to assert notability however could be improved.
samtar (
msg) 23:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. samtar ( msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
samtar (
msg) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- GrammarFascist I have recently learnt that my edits which involved replacing the template with speedy deletion are wrong so I am sorry for those. However, I do think its troubling that you created an article someone who is clearly the subject of the article. The issue of notability is still an issue here. Please note that I have deeply considered your effort when editing this article and it does cause me problems to propose getting rid of it but we should look to a bigger picture and that is keeping Wikipedia an encyclopaedia rather than a directory. Many people are artists but that alone does not make them notable on Wikipedia. Olowe2011 Talk 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Borderline notability, just edged over the line by the "Free Katie" stuff, but I could be convinced otherwise. BMK ( talk) 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I maintain that I have done nothing wrong in creating the article under discussion at the request of the subject. Wikipedia:Requested articles exists in part so that people who have a conflict of interest, particularly people who would themselves be the subject of an article or who are members of the company or organization that would be the subject of the requested article, can avoid the problems inherent to creating such articles themselves. SheilaCameronArtist made her request at the Teahouse, but that was not judged an inappropriate venue by any other Teahouse volunteers. As for her having pointed me to some of the sources used in the article, I don't see how that is a problem provided that I evaluated each source for reliability and for its appropriateness for inclusion in the article — which I did. I did not simply write an article "to order" without considering Wikipedia standards and policies. Indeed, all the artist contributed were possible sources and a couple of factual corrections; she did not draft the article, as the conversation on her talk page shows. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 03:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Folks, let's get back to the issue of WP:GNG and drop the issues of the subject requesting an article about herself and GrammarFascist creating the article. Some of the accusations, both against GrammarFascist and the subject herself, are unsupported and border on WP:BLP violations or personal attacks. In any event, it's a distraction to the appropriate discussion of the subject's notability and will not assist the closing administrator in assessing consensus.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ Courcelles: Sorry to disrupt you but oversight here is a good idea due to bias and a few other issues which are mentioned elsewhere Olowe2011 Talk 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment As requested, "some serious style and structure edits to comply with Wikipedia guidelines" are now done. w.carter -Talk 13:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Add comment And just for the record, this is hardly the first (or the last) article to have been created after someone with COI has been at the Teahouse asking for help. Editors there do an independent check (which can be rather ruthless) to see if the subject is notable, and if it is hey why not. I specifically remember the request for Andrea Nye that went from help-cry to article in a matter of hours. w.carter -Talk 09:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the issue here is notability. And in terms of notability, the sources appear to be there, even within the existing article, to show in-depth coverage, from a variety of sources, and not simply local coverage (although there's quite a bit of that). Onel5969 TT me 17:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I've been neutral so far, just fixing up the article in case it was kept, but I did a search to check how far her fame had reached, and when I found her name in an article in one of the major Swedish newspapers, I think that points to some notablility. Article is now included as a ref. w.carter -Talk 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as this seems acceptable and has enough sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I was on the fence at first (refs weren't great), but W.carter's edits have pushed me over towards keep. Notability clearly and resoundingly established. Primefac ( talk) 00:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep due to recent improvements to the article that establish notability. clpo13( talk) 09:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I've struck my previous comment. With new additions (thank you W.carter), the article is definitely notable. samtar ( msg) 10:04, 29 September 2015 (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.