Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Allen

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Allen

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

WP:BLP of a writer and curator, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to primary sources. As always, you do not get a writer over WP:AUTHOR by referencing it to sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things -- you make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article by referencing it to sources in which she's the subject of content written by other people, but that's not what any of the footnotes here are. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are 11 sources listed. Of these, only source #10 is RS:
- 1. "Jan Allen Named Acting Director of Agnes Etherington Art Centre – Canadian Art". Canadian Art." This is a four-sentence notice of a hiring. Not in-depth.
  2. "Inside Kingston Penitentiary (1835–2013): Geoffrey James". This is an artist's monograph with an afterward by Jan Allen. Printed by her employer Queens U. Not independent.
  3. "Annie Pootoogook : Kinngait compositions." A catalogue on an (excellent) artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source.
  4. "Sorting daemons : art, surveillance regimes and social control. A catalogue on an artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source.
  5. "Condé and Beveridge : class works...Agnes Etherington Art Centre." A catalogue on an (excellent) artist, with a Jan Allen essay. Not an independent source-- Published by employer.
  6. Nowell, Iris (2001). Joyce Wieland: A Life in Art." This is a book about Joyce Wieland, presumably with a Jan Allen essay. Not in-depth, independent ot about the subject.
  7. "C Magazine / Issue 58" An essay by Jan Allen.
  8. "C Magazine / Issue 52" An essay by Jan Allen.
  9. Dyck, Sandra ([1999]). Jan Allen's Speculative Science." This is the only independent in-depth source about the subject, as far as I can tell.
  10. "Programming: 1990-1999 | Modern Fuel Artist-Run Centre" This is a list of programming that confirms something happened, rather than being in-depth coverage about the article subject.198.58.159.245 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reassess There are now 44 sources listed, includimg the Toronto Globe and Mail and books about museums, public art, and visual culture. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to The Globe and Mail is not about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in an article about something else. (And incidentally, there is no such thing as the "Toronto Globe and Mail" — it's just "The Globe and Mail", period.). Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see you have just added a large set of minor mentions, although I stopped counting after I read ten of them. Bios, etc. Where is the in-depth coverage? For example, this set of minutes from the Kingston town council meeting proves just that she went to the town council to present something. Anyone who gets up to speak gets their name in the minutes. Two of the other references beside that one (there were six attached to one statement) are merely her name in a list of four or five names. Example. Those are not reliable sources that contribute to notability, they are just name checks. That is the case for most of the new references. I have not seen one new example of in-depth coverage in the newer 44-reference version. I want to, but cannot see anything of substance in the new refs. The Globe and Mail source mentions here in one sentence along with two other people. It's a name check. If you could point out which ones are substantial in-depth coverage, that would help. Pinging Theredproject, DGG and Mduvekot as they often participate in artist Afds.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struggled with this nomination. The article itself is factual, NPOV etc, and all statements are supported by independent, reliable sources. What is missing is two in-depth profiles in a major publication that would make it obvious that the subject meets the GNG. I agree that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Should the article be deleted then? I'm neither comfortable with the rigid application of rules (Wikipedia has no firm rules, remember?) nor with the inconsistent application of IAR, where we make exceptions just because, well, we can. I actually like having the article, because it is about someone who is a figure in a the art world where I participate as well, and it helps me put her contributions in context. It is a good thing to have. It adds to "the sum of all human knowledge". It doesn't violate anything in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, including Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. I think Allen meets an aspect of WP:CREATIVE: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Another criterion that can apply is that she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, if we can agree that curating is a form of creative work, which I think it is. In aggregate, the sheer number of (yes) mentions show that Allen has been both a subject and participant in the discourse about Canadian art for a very long time. I think that should be enough. Updated 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) in response to DGG's points below. Ceterum censeo, WP:CREATIVE must be rewritten. Vexations (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt's true that this is not a badly written page. It's also true that this person plays a role in the Canadian art world that is valuable on may levels. However the point of the encyclopedia not to create a definitive directory of all valuable persons, it is to create a directory of notable persons. The artists she is writing about have a lot of notability. I do not think she does as a curator; anyone filling her position at the gallery would have more than half the references cited here, by virtue of the position.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the keep argument is based on the proposal that we should keep bios on admittedly non-notable people because an editor here thinks they ought to be regarded as a major figure. Admittedly, curators are difficult to document unless they had published works that would qualify as NAUTHOR or NPROF,, but important curators do just that. The minor publications shown here do not. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE needs to be rewritten because it has no ability to handle situations like this one; in fact they might not even fit under CREATIVE and instead should be a category of academic...? Nor can it fairly handle artists who do not produce the kind of work that is collected by museums. And per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Chan we don't have consensus on what "substantial" and "significant" mean. I understand DGG's argument, but would we say the same of a president of a college or university? For the time being, given current WP:CREATIVE I will say Weak Keep in because of the awards, the significant coverage, and in particular because of the Candadian Art news item about her appointment; those pieces are typically good indicators of the stature of the person and/or the position. Also, sorry about the delay in responding: your ping got lost in a flood of alerts from Wikidata... Theredproject (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the entirety of the Canadian Art article, which is 92 words and three numerical figures: "A longtime curator at one of Canada’s leading university galleries has been named its acting director. Jan Allen, who has curated recent exhibitions on Carole Condé and Karl Beveridge, Annie Pootoogook, and Howie Tsui, has been named acting director of the Agnes Etherington Art Centre at Queen’s University in Kingston. A curator at the centre since 1992, Allen has developed more than 100 exhibitions. Since 2007, she has been chief curator/curator of contemporary art at the gallery. The director position was vacated in mid-October by Janet M. Brooke, who had been at the AEAC for 10 years."104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2018 (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.