Talk:Suz Andreasen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The initial Sources point to heir notability to her parents, however I have endeavored to revise and show her own notability. She is however, a product very much of an an inventor and a scientist and learned her allowing skills with her father when he was inventing Nytonil memory wire so I feel this should be included. Her father then died from his exposure to chemicals when she was only 20 years old. This is not in this bio because this woman needs their noability. It is there are part of her pedigree,

Consider these two bios already on WP -- both Annabel Astor, Viscountess Astor and also Efva Attling lisy either family relations or things like famous clients. I don't see alot of primary resources there. Please advise on what makes these people viable as opposed to Suz Andreasen. Oprah is one her clients - should i be listing that? I doubt it.

Talk Suz Andreasen:

This article should stay - it is not an advertisement, I do not work for anyone - this is a legitimate biography that is about Suz Andreasen the artist. All facts are easily checkable by looking up the work on Google as well as looking at the references. If you like, you may contact both Nancy C. Andreasen to check that she is indeed her mother. Her father is no longer living as referenced in the NY Times Article. Further the facts about the associations and memberships are noted as facts relating to the arts and design in America.

Archie Martin 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Archiemartin 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk Suz Andreasen:

I have modified the article to include many sources for Suz Andreasen as instructed by Wiki editors. Please advise.

Archie Martin

Archie Martin

Archiemartin 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Suz Andreasen should be included in the Jewellery Designer area;

Thanks for the reply. I don't see the parental issue as a conflict. I think that it should be in there as her story of growing up with these two unique people brought her to a world of metalsmithing and inventing alloys in gold. But the other thing that I think is important is that I listed her published work in books, as in works that are on shelves all over the world in the new edit. You can read them online but they are reliable source material.

I looked up a few things - first to answer your questions, ''What part of WP:BIO (or, alternatively, WP:BAND, since she's involved in music) do you think she passes?

IN this area I copied the WP" BIO cirtiera and here is where she fits:

THisis is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. A. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 B. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.5 C. A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following D. Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. E Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. So, I went and reposted. I am hoping this edit gets somewhere.

I would also like to add this - in the category that was suggested to me, I looked at the few designers you have and I don't see a great deal of substance - look at Julie Wimmer for example. I don't see a whole lot of substance there and I futher see family connections on the page of: Annabel Lucy Veronica Astor, Viscountess Astor (born 1948) is an English socialite. and also Efva Attling only notes that Madonna wears her work. Oprh Winfrey wears Suz's work. I would think that would be out of bounds but if it is not - let me know!

I can name about 10 other designers I work with who I could give a great deal more info on and that appear to have what you guys deem as reliable primary source material. So, let me know once again. I just hope that someone actually pays attention and does not delete it this time.

Archie Archiemartin 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Looking through sources 1.1 REPLY TO Seraphimblade Regarding SOURCES, ADDRESS MEDIUMS= 2 == Conflict of Interest? == 3 REPLY TO Conflict of Interest? 4 This article needs to be fleshed out 5 Response to -This article needs to be fleshed out

[edit] Looking through sources

Thus far, I'm afraid I don't see very much of use. Here are my analysis of the sources so far, in order:

1. Press releases are not reliable or nontrivial.
2. About her parents, mention in passing.
3. Non-working, are you sure this is the correct link?
4. At least a little better. However, I can't see that this book has generated much comment.
5. A self-published essay, little more then a blog post really.
6. Gives her a photo credit on the mountain photo, says nothing else about her though.
7. Appeared at Lilith Fair, apparently. If this could be better-sourced and generated some buzz, she might pass WP:BAND-but not if she only got one line in an article that's not about her.
8. Pretty piece, but doesn't really say anything about her.
9. Does not mention her at all, it's just an organization's main web page.
10. Ad/press release. Not nontrivial or reliable.

I'm afraid so far I'm not seeing it, and I'm able to find very little myself. To be notable by the bio guidelines, she'd have to be covered (not just mentioned in passing) in sources which are about her, not her parents, and are not ads/press releases/etc. I'm not seeing it yet. Seraphimblade 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REPLY TO Seraphimblade Regarding SOURCES, ADDRESS MEDIUMS=

OK - So let me once again ask and I will note questions after each reference:

1. Press releases are not reliable or nontrivial.

This was included because you yourself mentioned using direct sources about her. It is also mentioned that press information should be used in the Wilkepedia resources section. Please give a purposeful example of the sort of reference you would like to see.

2. About her parents, mention in passing.

I know Suz and she values her parents greatly and I know would like to see them mentioned as they are - in passing.

3. Non-working, are you sure this is the correct link?

A link to bio of Nancy C. Andreasen her Mother. THat can be changed to her UIowa Page if you like.

4. At least a little better. However, I can't see that this book has generated much comment.

Here - I could have put a link to her book on Amazon with relevant comment but thought that would be considered commercial. What kind of reference do you want for a book other than the fact than it can be confirmed published? I think you are pushing the envelop here.

5. self-published essay, little more then a blog post really.

Hardly - Suz worked for AOL as a columnist for over 10 years. This was taken from one of her AOL columns. Not self published at all.

6. Gives her a photo credit on the mountain photo, says nothing else about her though.

Written and photographed by her - you obviously missed the byline. She wrote for Citisearch and Frommers Travel guides for 6 years. This is her writing - again a primary reference to her published work. Once again I think you are not seeing it because you are not looking. Or perhaps you are looking to much.

7. Appeared at Lilith Fair, apparently. If this could be better-sourced and generated some buzz, she might pass WP:BAND-but not if she only got one line in an article that's not about her.

Buzz from whom? I thought the object was to verify sources. Please clarify.

8. Pretty piece, but doesn't really say anything about her.

This clearly shows her awarded work - which is the point is it not? Did you not want primary sources for her work? Again - you are seeking words and not visual and this is a visual artist medium.

9. Does not mention her at all, it's just an organization's main web page.

Correct - this can be removed if you like however she is a key presenter and will be listed in a few weeks. Since this relates to her discipilne and should be in Wkipedia anyway, I think it relevant but you decide.

10. Ad/press release. Not nontrivial or reliable.

Again - you asked for primary sources - and this was one I had of her newest collection, but you need to be more clear on what you want and exactly provide examples.

I'm afraid so far I'm not seeing it, and I'm able to find very little myself. To be notable by the bio guidelines, she'd have to be covered (not just mentioned in passing) in sources which are about her, not her parents, and are not ads/press releases/etc. I'm not seeing it yet. Seraphimblade 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Last - in response to your not seeing it - I think you seem to be more focused on her parents than you have been on her work or her life. Her parents are included because she asked me to include them. If you like, I am more than happy to ask her to log on here and tell you herself. However, the primary argument here is unclear - at least from what you seem to be telling me. First you ask for primary resources. I gave you more than 5. Then you critique the resources saying they are not good enough or do not generate "Buzz" as you put it. Is - or is this not a serious encyclopedic format? And if it is, buzz is not an issue - nor should there be issues of commercialism like how many people bought her CD in the 80s or how many people bought her books in the 90s. I think the real issue here is what you are seeing as what makes a great artist or what doesn't and I have provided more material and you have been rather partial and lacking in real ability to analyse the data. So - I ask you again to work with me and be more clear on what exactly you want - give precise examples please.

Frankly speaking - Wikipedia is lacking in the area of functional art and its representation of it.

Example: Dorie Nossiter was a well known jewelry designer in 1900 and on. She is not listed. Example: Archibald Knox - very famous Celtic Designer for LIberty 1880 - 1920 or so - NOT LISTED. Example: When one types in jewelry designer there is not such listing. However, you will find: "Handmade jewelry" as a listing which is a very poor listing for a profession that has known the likes of Lalique and Tiffany. I think you need to address the medium you are reviewing and edit from that perspective as opposed to looking at your data and dismissing with no relevant background information to make an educated decision upon.

Further - to quote the guide on notable persons Wikipedia clearly states: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

Please address the issues so that I can re-edit.

Thanks Archie Archiemartin 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We just got to the big issue. "Her parents are included because she asked me to include them." If this article is to stay, it would not be "her" article, even though it would be an article about her. This is why we discourage writing where there may be conflict of interest by the subject of the article or someone very close to that subject. Keep in mind that by "press resources", I don't mean stuff she wrote that someone reprinted. If a newspaper reporter goes out to gather facts and write a story on Microsoft, that's reliable, and shows that Microsoft is notable. If the newspaper just reprints a press release, it shows they had a slow news day, and does neither. Part of reliability is being written by someone independent of the source.

The AOL column might help. Does AOL have any type of biography on her, or something describing her? This might be helpful. The bio of her mother should be changed-if her mother is notable, she should be mentioned in her own article, else she should simply be mentioned briefly here. The obituary serves to prove that is her mother.

As to generating buzz, that would mean, for example, that someone wrote a piece specifically about her Lilith Fair appearance. This would simultaneously be a significant enough amount of source material to help with the article, and show that she's notable-that people independent of her take note of her enough to specifically feature her story. That is the biggest part of WP:BIO-the person must have those who are not affiliated with them, not business partners of them, not bosses of them, not customers of them, not making money from them, who take note of them. The students of a professor's class take note of their prof. The manager of a band takes note of the band. Family members keep track of each other. Business associates keep in contact all the time. What makes someone special, notable, is that someone outside these normal circles cares enough to research you and write about you. I know the notability guidelines can be a bit confusing, but to try and distill it even further: Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for an article. The subject must be verifiable and notable. What part of WP:BIO (or, alternatively, WP:BAND, since she's involved in music) do you think she passes? If she verifiably passes one of those criteria in those guidelines, that's all it takes. Seraphimblade 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

====NEW RESPONSE RE: Suz Andreasen

Thanks for the reply. I don't see the parental issue as a conflict. I think that it should be in there as her story of growing up with these two unique people brought her to a world of metalsmithing and inventing alloys in gold. But the other thing that I think is important is that I listed her published work in books, as in works that are on shelves all over the world in the new edit. You can read them online but they are reliable source material.

I looked up a few things - first to answer your questions, What part of WP:BIO (or, alternatively, WP:BAND, since she's involved in music) do you think she passes?

IN this area I copied the WP" BIO cirtiera and here is where she fits:

THisis is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

A. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

B. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.5

C. A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

D. Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

E Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. So, I went and reposted. I am hoping this edit gets somewhere.

I would also like to add this - in the category that was suggest to me, I looked at the few designers you have and I don't see a great deal of substance - look at Julie Wimmer for example. I can name about 10 other designers I work with who I could give a great deal more info on and that appear to have what you guys deem as reliable primary source material. So, let me know once again. I just hope that someone actually pays attention and does not delete it this time.

Archie Archiemartin 05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can show some independent reviews or a major fan base for her, she would certainly go through on those criteria. (I hope you don't think that was a rhetorical question, it seems she is pretty notable within her field-but, as with everything here, that has to be established by sourcing, not just gut-checked. :) ) I still would strongly encourage you, however, to make sure to cite sources for all the information you add, and not use personal knowledge-this will ensure that uninvolved editors can ensure that a neutral tone is maintained, and will stop any potential appearance of conflict of interest. The subject of an article, or those close to them, are welcome to be involved in that article-we just advise they follow a few good practices so that there's no appearance of impropriety. Seraphimblade 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Conflict of Interest? ==

Archiemartin, you write, "...she asked me to include them. If you like, I am more than happy to ask her to log on here and tell you herself." This indicates to me that you're personally acquainted with the subject of the article.

Wikipedia:Autobiography states, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Ms. Andreasen's asking you to submit content to an article about her smacks of self-promotion.

I'm persuaded from other sources that Ms. Andreasen, while not wildly famous, is marginally notable and worthy of inclusion. (In that respect, I'm on your side.) But she shouldn't enlist personal acquaintances to create publicity here on her behalf. -- Heath 24.53.130.213 06:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REPLY TO Conflict of Interest?

Heath - I have interviewed her and know her on a formal basis. I am not a representative of her nor do I work for her. I am a Doctoral student and have no interest in promoting her any more than I do many designers who I do not find here. I wrote that because when I did the interview of her for my thesis on American Jewelry Design, she talked to me in great detail about her parents - particularly her father who had an early and very tragic death. When I asked her if I could write this for wikipedia, her only interest was that her parents be included as she is loyal to them both dead and living. Let me be clear - she never asked me to write this, nor is she a self promoter. I hope that you can understand a person's desire to honor their parents. When a great artist is living, I think in all due respect you have to honor things when you interview them. The same could be said of my interview with Dale Chihuly who lost his eye and feels that he would like to have that mentioned in everything he does.

At any rate - I hope that this ends this silly debate about her parents once and for all. This is someone of notable accomplishments, my sentiments aside.

Archie Archiemartin 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be fleshed out

If you know this person, surely you can get more information from her. Get a picture to use of her. Get some information about her childhood, and early life and training. Get some references to her in the press, a review or two. Say. Put in the lillith fair stuff. Put in the stuff about her writing career. The reader is left very unsatisfied when reading this. Who is this person Suz and why should I care? What is unusual or interesting about her work? I read it and I think who cares? Now there might be much more interesting stuff about this person than this article indicates. I do not think having her parents be notable means she is necessarily notable. Since you know her, why on earth do you not pump her for more information? Is she shy? What? --Filll 14:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to -This article needs to be fleshed out

• IN response to your comments: I suggest that perhaps the last post was underwhelmed because you may not know anything about jewelry deisgn, functional art and the like. What is more - this individual is shy and the idea that I should "pump" her for more info only portends the idea that I am working as her self promoter which I am not. I did not include her early work in Lilith or her books because I don't want to dilute the article. And - I am pretty tired of this rather sorry and unintelligent comment about her parents. I think I made it pretty clear in the talk that she wants to honor her parents, they are notable, she does not need them to BE notable as she is on her own, (google her yourself), but they are in there because they relate to her origins and nothing more.

I hope this answers your questions - if you want more info on her jewelry and that element of her life, I will add - which I have been doing in the last 50 edits, but the rest of it is exactly, or pretty close to what I think it should be at this point.

The rules are the rules. I am following them to my best and to the letter.

So - once this is put up, and the consensus period is over, (which is should be soon and we seem to have a consensus that it should be kept) then I am more than happy to elaborate further on not only her, but other designers I have knowledge of either through research or personally - dead or living. I followed WP:BIO to the letter. Let's try and be a little supportive here. We do this in our spare time. I love doing it, but editorial rules must be followed and I have done that. ArchiemartinArchiemartin