Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annya Sand

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. WP:CRYSTAL + copyvio = Delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annya Sand

[edit]
Annya Sand (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)

Completing nomination for IP editor User:136.169.141.241. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, as per this diff, read in its entirety as "no proof of notability". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Problem is while she appears to feature prominently in Art in London magazine Winter 2008[1] and Art in England, April 2011[2], I'm unable to read them and I'm not very familiar with either journal. Recently, she seems more active as a curator/organizer[3], though is probably not notable for that alone. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, I am the page publisher and am posting this page as Annya Sand is distinguished up and coming artist in the UK. The issue I am having finding the completed articles on the internet derives from the fact that many art magazines - even very reputable publications such as Art London and Art of England do not publish their arcive online. Sand has, as recently as last month, exhibited in Monaco alongside names such as Sir Peter Blake and Damien Hirst. Her reputation as an exhibiting artist is well established. She also has a major London gallery behind her as well. I just wanted to add this to make a fair case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can use offline sources - just tell us the publication, date ("May 2012 edition" is close enough) and the author/title of the piece. I'm always wary, though, when I see the term "Up and coming" related to an article subject - this sometimes indicates that the person may not yet be notable under our policies. This isn't an indictment of the person's worth - far from it, I think Ms. Sand looks to have a promising career ahead of her. What it does indicate is that we don't have enough information to show that Ms. Sand's career has (as of today) advanced to the point that would indicate notability. So, it's very much a "Not Yet" sort of thing as opposed to a "Never Ever" one. The first step here is to find those sources - we'll have a look and go from there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the text is almost entirely a WP:COPYVIO from the gallery bio, as now! Borderline notability otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can get the off-line publication information and update the references. That is not a problem. Sand also has a forthcoming show at a national museum which I will get a reference for. I think that does take her beyond the dubious 'Up and Coming'. I do understand the issue with that description as all young artists, and their promoters, overuse this term. Thanks for your feedback on this. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "up and coming" is nearly synonymous with "not notable". Wikipedia is not PR for one's client. DarkAudit (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with this on the principal that "up and coming" is an overused term coined over the last ten years to describe emerging artists. On the basis that Sand has works in the collection of the National Museum of Kazakhstan and also has a show there this year, the term "up and coming" is not an accurate description. It should be "established" as she exhibits regularly. I will contact the National Museum and ask for more information on this that can be cited. I do understand the integrity of this approval process and want to make a good case for Sand being listed on Wikipedia. There is a strong cultural identity emerging out of this region and, as an artist, Sand represents part of that. Also, for the record, I am not in PR. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU tp* 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed the OTRS notice. -- Trevj (talk) 21:31, 23 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/Annya_Sand&oldid=1077431553"