Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Chan

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. Its not clear where th bar is for exhibitions so nc it is Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Chan

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

Not a notable artist. No independent references, and WP:NARTIST is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What I see, is that she quite not known outside of Canada, but her notability on national level can be established. The solo exhibition in main provincial gallery, which is Art Gallery of Nova Scotia may grant her passing WP:CREATIVE - [1]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE is for major contributions to the field, including very major shows like biennales. It does not mention a routine exhibition in a provincial gallery on its own as a qualifying activity. To say she meets notability on that basis is wrong.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would allow for myself to disagree with you. If a gallery itself is notable enough to have an article, exhibition in such a gallery can add to a notability of an artist. Also, the exhibition in National Gallery of Canada was added to the article, which adds to my POV she is notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it certainly contributes to GNG, as does the Nat Gallery show. No argument there. However you say above that such a show proves WP:CREATIVE ("The solo exhibition in main provincial gallery, which is Art Gallery of Nova Scotia may grant her passing WP:CREATIVE"), which it does not. WP: Creative is for substantial accomplishments and major contributions to the field. Two admittedly good shows does not mean she meets WP:CREATIVE. I point it out as there has been a misuse of WP:CREATIVE recently at AfD that has allowed many mediocre artists to be kept. The policy has very high standards, and just have a couple of (admittedly good) shows does not mean it is met. There is a large difference between that and the kinds of artists the policy is meant to recognize, for example Sandra Meigs, Jana Sterbak or Sandra Semchuk. Those are notable artists who meet WP:CREATIVE easily, as they have made a substantial contribution to the field and are recognized by their peers as having done so. As opposed to the artist in question here, who is relatively unknown. As in all subjects, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of marginally notable things. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive that "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is quite met here. The exhibition in National Gallery of Canada is quite substantial for an artist. And this is in addition to another references, where she is mentioned in relation with her artistic and curatorial work. And I am still positive that exhibiting in Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is also grants the same Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three-person show at the National Gallery is a good show. I'm not sure it is a "significant show". The Art gallery of Nova Scotia show is not particularly impressive, and not significant at all. No offense, but it's Nova Scotia. The last artistically significant thing that happened in NS was when Joseph Beuys and Robert Frank visited. Ha. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added 3 person exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada [2] Theredproject (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for notability to exist, there have to be good independent sources. I see seven sources in the article. Six of them were published by the galleries she is exhibitng at, so they are not independent. The seventh is an index listing Note that there are zero independent journalistic sources here. Notability is not met.104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

changed to Keep, as I underestimated the significance of the National Gallery show, and I have a sense that there is going to be more press about her soon.104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. GNG is not a measure of what an article states about a person, but of how well it reliably sources the claim as true — but the sourcing here isn't getting her over GNG, as most of them are directly affiliated primary sources, and the few that are actual media coverage merely namecheck her existence without being substantively enough about her to count as GNG-building sources. No gallery show, not even at the National Gallery, counts as an automatic free pass over CREATIVE if your only source for it is the gallery's own self-published website about itself, or a mere blurb in an events calendar. An art critic actually reviewing the show would help make that show a data point in the notability column, but that's not what any of the sources here represent. (By the same token, a musician or band doesn't get over WP:NMUSIC's touring criterion just because concert listings calendars or the websites of the concert venues themselves can technically be added to show that concert dates happened — music journalists have to write editorial content about the tour, such as concert reviews, before touring counts as notability. Not that NMUSIC is directly relevant to the notability of a visual artist, obviously, but the relationship between gallery shows and notability works the same way as the relationship between concert performances and notability: editorial content about the show, not just an event listing, is what it takes.) Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Bearcat: and 104.163.147.121 you have stated that an organization's website (even if that organization is the National Gallery of Canada) does not constitute a WP:RS but is considered WP:SELFPUB. That really surprises me. Especially with regional and national museums. I have understood that a listing on a museum or other major institution's website constitutes a WP:RS to establish that an event did happen; it is WP:RS because it is authored by the curator and goes through extensive curatorial and editorial steps before arriving on the website. Is there anywhere that this has been noted or recorded? Pinging established AfD participants @Arthistorian1977, Megalibrarygirl, Mduvekot, and DGG: for objective/neutral clarification and discussion. And to be clear here: I want to understand established practice, and build consensus amongst key AfD participants about what does or does not count as WP:RS in this kind of situation. Theredproject (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding what's being said. The National Gallery of Canada's own website is obviously trustworthy on the matter of whether an artist had a show or not, but its own information about its own programming is not a notability-conferring source in its own right, because it's directly affiliated with the claim being made. Regardless of what gallery is involved, a gallery show is notable if journalists, writing for media, have reviewed the show, but not if the source for the show is the venue's own website: not because it's not trustworthy, but because it's not independent of the show. Notability is not a question of the fact that the show can technically be verified as happening — it's a question of whether media outlets not directly involved in the show did or didn't pay attention to the show independently of the venue's or the artist's own PR materials. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What he said.104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the role that museums and non-collecting institutions like public galleries play in establishing notability is worth exploring further, but perhaps not as part of this AfD. I really would like to see a complete rewrite of WP:NARTIST and address the issue that significant critical attention does not just come from "the media". The media's role in art criticism is massively problematic. Talk to my art critic friends about how many times a publication has suggested that: "perhaps the gallery could pay for the review"? I have very little faith in journalists doing anything beyond regurgitating press releases (with a few rare exceptions). There's no money in writing about art, especially for the mainstream press that has all but abandoned it in favour of writing viral content. As far as I'm concerned, a scholar or art historian writing a catalogue entry for a museum show is far more reliable and more intellectually independent than any given journalist. The museum's marketing department however, writing the content for the institution's website, is neither independent nor reliable. Mduvekot (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The independent critical sources requirement is not so bad. Yes, it can be bought, but it is actually pretty hard to bribe real journalists. It's a lot easier to cosy up to a curator and cultivate a relationship that ultimately gets you a show because you have are doing something that will help their career. And that happens all the time! In the process you get piles of press releases, maybe a catalogue, and lots of nice words. Also, if you have met any curators you will know that their process of selection is entirely opaque, subjective, private and unknowable business. In contrast, real journalists, especially for major newspapers, get an assignment to write about a show and they go out that day and do it. They do it all the time, and cosying up to them is only going to help if they like your work and find it newsworthy in some way. And that's the independent external validator of notability: the journalist looking at their notes back at the office, choosing which artist from the show they are going to write about. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like other problems involving reliable sourcing and notability, the application of our guidelines--or any possible guideline we might adopt--will always require judgments. The formal publications of a truly major museum of international reputation, especially when signed by one of its curators, are a RS, even about material in its own collections, and fully equal in reliability to any other scholarly publication.

The problem with this article is somewhat different . I think that the requirement of being in the permanent collection of a major museum should be interpreted:: strictly. Being part of a temporary exhibit held at a major museum is not the same, and does not have the same implications of permanent importance.

With respect to reviews of exhibits, this is a different problem again. Reviews in all sources of all media are always potentially subject to PR and lobbying. But they also represent the only current third party sources in most cases, and the very fact that a major reviewer selects them is significant, if the reviewer is sufficient authoritative. But the brief notices characteristic of many exhibitions are just notices, like any other notices, and are just as unreliable for notability here as they are for restaurants. I've always interpreted the substantial critical comment requirement to mean serious academic or art-criticism publication,not ephemeral reviews. As with all such publications, there's an inherent bias due to publication and authorship lag--there generally is very little such work, especially for a innovative art form, for many years. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my reviews, I tend to think like DGG and Mduvekot regarding major museums. As for now WP:CREATIVE states that to pass the notability, artist work (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. It does not demand solo exhibition or being part of permanent collection, which I see in many artist's AfDs. As for substantiality, this is subjective. We don't have clear definition of what substantial means, so I always try to use common sense. For example, for Israeli artists, which is my main theme of interest, to be exhibited in Haifa Museum of Art ot Ramat Gan Museum of Israeli Art is a substantial. For international artists, this is minor and only Tel Aviv or Jerusalem museums may add to notability. The same I apply to Canadian artists, being part of Natinal Gallery of Canada exhibition is one step toward passing notability, but exhibiting in Art Gallery of Nova Scotia is important as well, since it's a notability on national level. As for journalist's review, I am agree with DGG that sometimes it's hard to distinguish between genuine review and ordered PR article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can come up with is this analysis of the sources:

[3] is a database with a fairly broad scope; inclusion does not automatically confer notability
[4] is a bio on the website of an an artist centre in Montreal; it is unclear who wrote it, but it appears to be related to a two-person show called Elementary Particles that has an accompanying exhibition essay which I presume is written by the curators, Peter Flemming and Claudine Hubert.
[5] is an announcement of the longlist for the 2010 Sobey Art Award, for which she was not shortlisted.
[6] is an announcement of a solo (between, and in tears) show at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, which mentions a catalogue with essays by Vicky Chainey-Gagnon and Ray Cronin. Chan, Lucie; Chainey Gagnon, Vicky; Cronin, Ray; Foreman Art Gallery; Art Gallery of Nova Scotia (2006). Lucie Chan. Halifax: Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. ISBN 1554571642.
[7] Is an announcement of a three-person show at the National Gallery of Canada. This possibly meets WP:NARTIST4(b): has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition.
[8] is an announcement of a two-person show in a commercial gallery. Not significant coverage.
[9] is an announcement of a group show at the Art Gallery of Sudbury.
[10] mentions Chan as a member of a discussion panel. Not significant coverage.

In summary, I see two solo exhibitions at notable, if regional institutions, one group exhibition at a very notable institution with a (inter)national scope where the work was a significant part of the exhibition, and two essays that provide a critical analysis of the work. I don't see that we need to delete the article; all statements can be verified and are supported by reliable sources. That results in a (weak) Keep for me. Mduvekot (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have always understood "significant exhibition" to mean something on the order of the Armory Show. Possibly I am being too strict here, but if we going to use the much looser interpretation here, it would affect the result of many of AfDs; exhibitions of the nature of those shown here have not generally been accepted, nor have the museum notes accompanying such exhibitions been considered significant criticism. I don't think we should make that decision in a single AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "substantial part of a significant exhibition" could use use some clarification, and we should not attempt to decide that here. Is anyone tracking common outcomes related to NARTIST? Mduvekot (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your reflections above. I think we should have some discussions about what "substantial" and "significant" mean. Theredproject (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it would be helpful if it said something like significant = two or three person show at a country's national gallery or a major Biennale.104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mduvekot: I don't think anyone is tracking outcomes in any systematic way. A review of some sort would probably be productive, and per @DGG: and 104.163.147.121 it would be the appropriate place to make more clear definitions of "substantial" and "significant." Theredproject (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG for significant discussion in reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure about other AfDs, but to me this also appears to satisfy WP:ARTIST for her work being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Lonehexagon (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some clarification about the lack of clarity about what "substantial" and "significant" have come to mean, I feel confident saying that Chen is on the Keep side of Bischoff: solo show at significant museum, three person at the National Gallery, long listed for Sobey. Theredproject (talk) 14:19, 31 March 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.