Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Ng

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 no consensus. Not a strong consensus, but a preponderance of the arguments seem to reach the conclusion that the subject probably is notable. Go Phightins! 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Ng[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are passing mentions and WP:SPS. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, including because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and because I have added this New York Times article that extensively interviews Ng as an expert, as well as this Wall Street Journal review of the Frick's 'Cocktails With a Curator' that includes more than a passing mention of Ng's role, this Vogue article that includes more than a passing mention of Ng because it includes several quotes from her talking about 'Cocktails with a Curator,' this Washington Post article recommending 'Cocktails with a Curator' and providing slightly more than a passing mention with some commentary about Ng, and this Cleveland.com article 'particularly recommending' one of Ng's 'Cocktail with a Curator' shows. When combined with the sources that were already in the article, including The Paris Review quoting Ng as an expert, WP:BASIC notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Four of the five are passing mentions and the they are part of Cocktails with a Curator essentially making them the same reference across outlets. The Cocktails with a Curator is the Museum of Modern Art own magazine programme. So I don't think they even qualify as sources and they are certainly not in-depth, nor reliable. This is a BLP and they don't conform to WP:SIGCOV. It need much more solid sources than mere passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:SIGCOV, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," but I think the two Wall Street Journal articles by the same author in the article could be an exception to that general rule, because the first was published on July 4, 2020 and is a more in-depth review, while the second, published on December 13, 2020, included information about the popularity of the virtual tour series. All of the sources I have listed above appear to be WP:SECONDARY sources because they are either offering some form of commentary about Ng or making an evaluation of Ng as an expert. If there were more frequent appearances by Ng as an expert in conventional media such as The New York Times, this would support notability per WP:PROF criteria 7, so I think the NYT article contributes to her notability per WP:BASIC, especially because it is an in-depth article focused on her and her expertise. As to the other sources described above that have noticed Ng in the Cocktails with a Curator virtual tours, these appear to be independent and reliable sources, and the notice is WP:SUSTAINED over time - the articles are dated from May 1, 2020 (Vogue) through January 17, 2021 (Cleveland.com), so these also appear to support WP:BASIC notability because they are more than trivial mentions - these are not, for example, calendar listings or directory entries. Beccaynr (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I like to look at the relisted AfDs to see if I fall quickly into one side or the other to help generate consensus, and figured this article would be a quick check. No dice with that. I see merit to both arguments as there is not a lot of coverage specifically about her, but there is some, and she is mentioned in passing in a significant number of articles. What brings me from "I have no idea" to "I would err on the side of keep" is that she has a significant number of those mentions in non-english sources, including being used as a reference here and quoted as an expert here and here. I know it's weak tea, but that's why I'm at weak keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Namedrops do not contribute to notability, nor do interviews, even if they come from RSs. WP:GNG, on which WP:BASIC is based, is clear about this. I've found no SIGCOV about the subject in my search, and the namedrops do not indicate passage of NPROF#7 either. Java Hurricane 07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough for the career path, if more citations are available, and woman in role in a major and unique exhibition of global significance, citations enough for GNG, or if borderline WP:TOOSOON improve by more suitable citations. Kaybeesquared (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not major. The problem with the refs is that they are mostly passing mentions. The reference above for example, at [[1] states Aimee Ng, assistant curator at the Frick Museum in New York: "He is known for accurately capturing the appearance of people, even when he painted in the 16th century. They indicate poor referencing, passing mentions essentially. These ones listed for non-English sources, are really not that decent. scope_creep^Talk 23:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is a form of commentary when sources quote Ng as an expert and supports her notability as such; these are not trivial mentions according to the WP:BASIC guideline, as noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are exactly that, trivial mentions. Where is the deep biography that is needed for BLP's? scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment in this discussion begins with a quote from the WP:BASIC guideline, and explains how a 'deep biography' is not required, so I will not repeat myself. Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining yourselves doesn't answer of question of why there is no coverage. Name mentions, don't get spun up to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, however many there is. There needs to in-depth, independent, coverage scope_creep^Talk 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough for reasons cited above. She is a prolific writer and an important scholar. She is a prolific interviewer and appears often in art related productions on YouTube. Amy Ng videos Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. And we should all recall that it had been freshly created only a week before. It ought to be given time and space to grow and fluorish. WP:HEY WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that she is an important scholar. No paper cites, nor h-index has been presented, and nobody is really watching those vidoes, in the scheme of things, they're very poor as sources. I still don't see WP:THREE that can prove she is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty much accepted at WP:PROF that citation indices don't work at all for art historians (tip - they often don't write "papers" at all, not being scientists) . Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish Keep several books, albeit published by her institution. The article doesn't present her case very well, but it is relatively easy for curators at major museums to be notable, as their exhibitions get many "in depth" reviews, and these count for the curator's notability. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one shred of evidence been has been presented that she is a notable scholar. Instead several passing mentions, as well as idea that she is a curator, and her exhibition may be notable, without one decent WP:SECONDARY source been presented, is worrying. The whole thing has been built on a house of cards. The first six have nothing in them. They are primary sources. I'm not against primary sources, but for BLP's I need to see secondary sources, per policy. scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has curated 5 exhibitions at the Frick. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2021 (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.