Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chan (artist)

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. (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chan (artist)

[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)

Reason, written like a resume, questionable neutrality and notability, reads self promotion Meaningzone (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak~~ keep I haven't had time to analyze the impressive collection of sources on the article though I suspect they've been puffed out at least a little; but if even half of them actually focus on the article subject she probably meets WP:GNG and I'm a notorious inclusionist when it comes to marginal BLPs. Concur that the article needs a lot of work to be less promotional but there's probably a stub to salvage here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV: Indifferent I am the subject mentioned in the biography page. I did not start this page and had no control over how I was represented. But yes, I have an "impressive collection of sources" citing me in my short-lived academic career.Usrrname(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice you're here, but your opinion won't matter much as we'll decide based on published sources, and arguments by the subject are pretty much ignored. I'd just sit back and watch the show were I you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jennifer Chan is an important Canadian-based net artist. She has had a number of solo shows and particiated in innumerable group exhibitions. The citations included are from major sources in the art world and all name her as an important player in Internet art. Not sure how this is a "weak keep" or even a page worth considering for deletion. The page is neutral and there seems to be no coi. 13ab37 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not provide a valid reason for deletion. Being promotional and or needing editing is not a reason. The nominator should see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. As to notability, secondary coverage is not the strongest, but it is there and certainly meets GNG. A profile in Canadian Art is significant. She is mentioned here in Hyperallergenic, again briefly in Canadian Art, here in a list of 25 net artists of repute, here on Momus.ca, here on a site published by the Kunstkritik foundation, here on a Polish art site and here briefly here in an independent magazine. Additionally, why is Artforum devoting a paragraph to her if she is not a notable person? I do not need any more info to plainly extract the fact that she is widely mentioned in reliable sources. The depth is not ideal, but the Canadian Art enty is certainly in-depth. Additionally, her video works are held and distributed by Vtape in Toronto, which is an internationally recognized distributor of video art. GNG met. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:"The page is neutral" it reads like a puffed up resume here are some examples:--" with great rigor, a sharp sense of irony, and playfulness"' clearly an opinion cited or not."Her influential 2011 essay" again but with no citation, not neutral."She pushes her fascination for tech related fetishes even further in her breakout piece from the same year," wildly not neutral and self promotional. None of this seems like it belongs on Wikipedia it sounds all like information that should be hosted on the artist's website in the form of a resume. See WP:NOTRESUME , WP:NOTPROMO Meaningzone (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the items you mentioned as problematic are no longer in the article, as I clicked the edit button and rewrote them to have a neutral tone. That is a much faster and simpler process than creating an AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTCLEANUP, which makes clear that none of these problems are reasons to delete the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the provided links "By the same token, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it" the reasons I mentioned are listed under reasons for deletion on WP:DEL-REASON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meaningzone (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems the original concern with promotional language has been fixed, and the suggestion that the citations are fake have been easily proven false with a quick Google search (and by looking at some magazines on my bookshelf). I don't see any remaining arguments in favour of this article's deletion. Jghampton (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw this on my watchlist, and I thought I would pop in here despite my unofficial semi-pause at AFD. Full declaration: I have met the subject of the article once, at a dinner, and knew of her work prior to that, but none of that will keep me from an NPOV assessment of the facts. Actually ThatMontrealIP already did it, and I agree with everything they said. I want to underscore, that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, even though this has resulted in some cleanup in this case. --Theredproject (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just to add my voice to the chorus of keeps :) i have never met the artist, but i have seen her work & it is significant. she has been internationally recognised in the field of internet art for quite some years now. i'm sure that the article will be further developed by researchers in this field. Frock (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State of article after cleanup has convinced me this isn't a marginal case at all. Changing my !vote accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is an often referenced artist in the field of net art and the tone in which the article is written seems appropriate at this moment. Clco (talk) 15:30, 25 October 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.