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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sindelar[edit]

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

This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable.—Ash (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sindelar is notable because he produced a large body of work in the form of religious art that was used-- reproduced and published, but rarely credited-- by the cluster of more-or-less interrelated Ascended Master Teachings groups, who are notable and even pretty well known for having had millions of followers in the US, and all then the usual fate of cults. Sindelar's work is strange in style as well as in content-- like George Washington on his knees in prayer to swords with purple plumes of flame with a white star of David in the middle. (The prose that accompanied the first uses of his work is also, uh, impressive, and later was made even more so by being cantillated by Elizabeth Clare Prophet in any media outlet she could get exposure in. No description can do it justice, but the style resembles a tobacco auction, and the content included prayers that society be protected from such perverse, demonic, and possibly extraterrestrial forces as: breakdancing, Cindi Lauper, Pat Benatar, and the movie "Ghostbusters". I couldn't make this up if I tried- have a listen to their tracks on "Sounds Of American Doomsday Cults, vol 14".) But long story short, there were and are strange cults, some Notable, some of which published Sindelar's art, which was copious and unusual. I'll go shake the tree for whoever would have more insight and references than Google Books has(n't). I have two volumes containing his work, and have seen many more (and stupidly passed up a chance to buy), but this is definitely not my scholarly area-- so I started this stub in the hope that someone whose scholarly area this is part of, would naturally stumble on it and expand on its content. This hope of mine seems to have wikidisappointed me, and you!, so I'll do some legwork now. I can think of a few books about the Ascended Masters movement, and some must mention Sindelar, but I have none of the books on hand. Thus I regret having moved away from the vicinity of a university library, to a small island in Alaska. Sean M. Burke (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) As you created the article over two and a half years ago and nobody has found any reliable sources that come close to showing notability (self promotional websites and publications or "cantillations" from Elizabeth Clare Prophet are unlikely to count) you may find third party sources hard to find.—Ash (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The great difficulty, we have all discovered, is that prodding Google Books for a rarely/never credited artist is simply not going to reliably reflect where his work appeared, over what period of time, the breadth of his work, nor of what importance it held for the I-Am/ECP/etc groups. I needn't reiterate my actually quite low opinion of the groups, but the many, uh, adherents in the groups did seem to take his work very seriously and to take it (along with its strange accompanying text) as "revealed", essentially ikonic-- I have actually seen his paintings sold as ikons. Ikons, annoyingly, often go unattributed, thus occluding the artists' potentially significant notability. In other works, this is harder than it looks, and I see no reason to believe that in the two and a half years, anyone stumbled on the entry and even gave this a try.Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, those things are more about the notability of those groups, not about the artists' work. Sindelar is mentioned in the book Prophet's Daughter, by Erin Prophet, but just in passing. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've corrected me on an extremely crucial point-- his importance isn't going to be established as much by mention of his work, as by use of it. The two thin books I have, Fundamental Group Outline Fourth Class and [...]Fifth[...], are each 48 pages long, and have a new, elaborate, full-page painting on every fifth page or so! (And they are all wowsers, hooboy.) The first ("Fourth") book says "second edition 1970", and the second ("Fifth") says simply "reprinted 1971". They are from "St. Germain Press, Inc." I'm ILL-ing all the St. Germain books I can get my hands on, and try to see whether Sindelar produced thirteen paintings, or three hundred, spread over four years, or forty. Therefore, as my Inter-Library Loan requests are percolating and processing, I request that this CFD at least really Wait-- if the publication of his stuff is a factor, as I imagine it really has to be. (And I have to admit that I'm itching with anticipation at seeing the weirdness of yet more of his stuff. The not-even-100 pages that I currently own are dazzlingly strange. They put the Codex Seraphinianus to shame!) Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As there are no reliable sources that come near to meeting WP:ARTIST, I'm rather puzzled as to what you mean by "fame".—Ash (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And im quited puzzled with you...but the opposit..?--Judo112 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person."
Seen this?
Sindelar's connection to the Ballards and Prophet (who subsequently appropriated his work because he didn't bother to copyright it), is in fact the reason he is remembered at all. I do understand that it's not the notability of said groups but of Sindelar himself that is being questioned here. However I'm voting to Keep his article separate, or Merge it into the already existing article on the I Am Activity. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Source) Thanks for finding that newspaper article. A painting presented during a court case as part of a commercial fraud prosecution against the "I AM" movement does not appear to do much to meet any of the requirements of WP:ARTIST. I am not sure that this AFD discussion is terribly meaningful if participants are going on their gut feelings and beliefs rather than the stated notability requirements.—Ash (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Maybe he and May don't rate their own articles, but I still think they ought to be mentioned in the articles about the groups, in passing, since they were the creators of some pretty iconic outsider work. Not at the level of Darger, but the Jesus and St. Germain portraits and especially the "Your Divine Self" or "Magic Presence" illustration turn up fairly frequently, and usually uncredited, in New Age books, magazines, websites, etc., but not just there. I've seen bastardized editions of "Your Divine Self" twice on the covers of reprints of older, non-New Age classics of spiritualism and psychic research -- nothing to do with the Ballards or CUT. People might like to know where it came from. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying for (as the expression goes) the "spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" of Notability. (And I'll note: 'letter of' is still subjective, since it depends on readings and applications of blurry terms. I am fresh from an argument with my father on my point. Bitter much?) We should not call one of those "gut feelings" and the other of those, say, "blind legalism"-- that makes this unproductive. Moreover, the Notability points are not Law From On High, they are, as said right in their title, "Notability Guideline". Blah blah blah, arguing until the sun explodes, blah blah, I'd be basically happy with a Merge. Sean M. Burke (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take a decent reliable source over blah, blah, any day ;) —Ash (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also sourced well, which even more indicates notability.--Judo112 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its time to keep this article.--Judo112 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (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.
More