Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fleetwood (curator)

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. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleetwood (curator)[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)

The subject is fairly accomplished, but I can't find any significant secondary coverage about him; all available coverage is mere mentions and interviews. Searching online didn't turn up anything better. Doesn't meet WP:GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too strict?

I think the strict application of WP:GNG in this category would almost certainly discard any African based art curator, as most would do worst compared to this one, his google search hits ("List of South African Curators + John fleetwood") were quite revealing for me. This curator is definitely notable having worked in at least 3 countries in the African continent. This a good place to start if we are to document African curators. --Thuvack | ^talk 15:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Agree with Thuvack, this is a problem that plagues many African articles. Although in this case, there are more support reference articles for this subject than can usually be found. There is not enough coverage of notable people within the art world - and other professions - across Africa (and other developing communities) for these reasons. Please reconsider. Isla Haddow (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is drowning in articles that do not meet GNG. We barely have the resources to maintain articles that actually meet GNG. There is no reason to embrace articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Johnpacklambert, you say "There is no reason to embrace articles that do not meet GNG"; but Thuvack and Islahaddow have just provided a reason for accepting this one. You are of course free to reject it for one reason or another; but you might at least acknowledge its utterance. My problem with this article is that it sounds both like a CV (with even a list of "panel discussions" participated in (!)) and promotional: "Fleetwood has been noted for his 20 years of experience in understanding the role of photography and arts practices for social change" (Noted by whom, and where? How does "photography and arts practices" differ from plain "photography and art"? Is understanding [whatever] something of which one has experience?) Perhaps Moenirah would like to return to their creation and remove the excess stuff, and also the promotionalism. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Their reason boils down to "we need to right wrongs" which is not one of the goals of Wikipedia, and explicitly stated as one thing Wikipedia does not try to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the "keep" comments above had read "There's a northern-hemisphere hegemony in curatorship worldwide; we need more articles on Africa-based curators in order to do away with this", I'd agree with you. But they don't. Instead, they're talking about (claimed) weaknesses within Wikipedia. I'd thought that strengthening the weak areas within Wikipedia -- if they really are weak; if strengthening them wouldn't produce more problems -- would be an admirable goal. What do you think of the essay "Wikipedia:Systemic bias" -- is it incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also have to agree with Thuvack - if we were to apply WP:GNG to the strictest degree, most curators from Africa would not be eligible. Going through the linked sources and my own research on Google, Mr. Fleetwood might be indeed one of the most prolific and impactful curators in Africa, a fine example for future entries about African curators. However, I do also agree with John regarding the "20 years of experience" sentence - this should either be further elaborated or left out altogether according to WP:PROMO ParanoidAndroid83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update (still keep ;-)) -- as suggested by Hoary and others above (thank you), the writers of the article have worked on the language to reduce the perception of promotionalism. Please can you review and decide accordingly. The article is being written by members of the Art on Our Mind collective being run out of Witswatersrand University in South Africa to ensure that Africa's notable artists and curators are indeed given rightful visibility on global platforms. Although "northern-hemisphere hegemony" and systemic bias were not mentioned in my defence above, this article and others like it are part of a concerted and long term effort to fill the gaps, however they do come up against significant issues with regards to citations, as well as being new-ish editors. Mentorship and guidance would definitely be appreciated. Thanks! Isla Haddow (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These "new-ish editors": are they students at Wits? If so, they really ought to know that when you make an assertion and follow it with a reference, the reference should back up the assertion. Not just part of the assertion, still less just say something that's vaguely compatible with the assertion. I looked at one "reference": it turned out not to be a reference. I then looked at two more: same thing. Whether or not a biographee meets the requirements for "notability" is something that might be negotiable. But it's simply unacceptable to misrepresent what look like references but in reality are not. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2020 (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.