507:
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
418:
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
875:
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.
508:
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
899:
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.
820:
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
894:
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
423:
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
209:
344:
348:
331:, 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
384:
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
643:
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
513:
774:
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
170:
414:, "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
669:
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.
287:
203:
304:
597:
270:
689:
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
117:
102:
436:, 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
351:'particularly recommending' one of Ng's 'Cocktail with a Curator' shows. When combined with the sources that were already in the article, including
545:
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.
786:. 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.
343:
that includes more than a passing mention of Ng because it includes several quotes from her talking about 'Cocktails with a
Curator,' this
66:
671:
They indicate poor referencing, passing mentions essentially. These ones listed for non-English sources, are really not that decent.
347:
recommending 'Cocktails with a
Curator' and providing slightly more than a passing mention with some commentary about Ng, and this
52:. Not a strong consensus, but a preponderance of the arguments seem to reach the conclusion that the subject probably is notable.
336:
525:
97:
90:
17:
456:
notability because they are more than trivial mentions - these are not, for example, calendar listings or directory entries.
509:
740:
Explaining yourselves doesn't answer of question of why there is no coverage. Name mentions, don't get spun up to satisfy
665:
It is not major. The problem with the refs is that they are mostly passing mentions. The reference above for example, at
332:
312:
143:
138:
224:
147:
111:
107:
191:
804:
567:
521:
476:
953:
130:
40:
779:
340:
652:
552:
308:
59:
846:
that citation indices don't work at all for art historians (tip - they often don't write "papers" at all,
185:
949:
798:
36:
339:
of the Frick's 'Cocktails With a
Curator' that includes more than a passing mention of Ng's role, this
181:
930:
910:
896:
885:
859:
835:
811:
794:
754:
735:
717:
702:
681:
656:
635:
609:
588:
558:
529:
497:
465:
441:
420:
398:
368:
316:
296:
279:
262:
217:
72:
352:
790:
731:
698:
648:
605:
547:
461:
364:
54:
707:
They are exactly that, trivial mentions. Where is the deep biography that is needed for BLP's?
231:
926:
881:
855:
644:
86:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
948:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
726:
guideline, and explains how a 'deep biography' is not required, so I will not repeat myself.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
903:
828:
747:
741:
710:
674:
537:: Namedrops do not contribute to notability, nor do interviews, even if they come from RSs.
411:
391:
385:
255:
245:
822:
723:
690:
542:
453:
433:
356:
328:
843:
579:
488:
429:
291:
274:
517:
440:
virtual tours, these appear to be independent and reliable sources, and the notice is
197:
787:
727:
694:
625:
621:
601:
538:
457:
360:
249:
241:
134:
922:
877:
851:
164:
744:, however many there is. There needs to in-depth, independent, coverage
620:- not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass
596:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
432:
criteria 7, so I think the NYT article contributes to her notability per
126:
78:
918:
775:
722:
My first comment in this discussion begins with a quote from the
944:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
388:. It need much more solid sources than mere passing mentions.
380:
essentially making them the same reference across outlets. The
376:
Four of the five are passing mentions and the they are part of
570:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
479:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
335:
that extensively interviews Ng as an expert, as well as this
520:. I know it's weak tea, but that's why I'm at weak keep.
783:
160:
156:
152:
216:
444:
over time - the articles are dated from May 1, 2020 (
576:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
485:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
956:). No further edits should be made to this page.
303:Note: This discussion has been included in the
286:Note: This discussion has been included in the
269:Note: This discussion has been included in the
288:list of New York-related deletion discussions
230:
8:
305:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
118:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
595:
302:
285:
271:list of Women-related deletion discussions
268:
419:sources I have listed above appear to be
598:list of content for rescue consideration
359:notability appears to be established.
7:
647:improve by more suitable citations.
428:, this would support notability per
240:References are passing mentions and
452:), so these also appear to support
919:curated 5 exhibitions at the Frick
24:
825:that can prove she is notable.
103:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
842:It is pretty much accepted at
1:
466:01:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
399:12:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
369:03:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
317:15:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
297:15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
280:15:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
263:15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
782:Not the article it was when
448:) through January 17, 2021 (
693:guideline, as noted above.
93:(AfD)? Read these primers!
973:
931:15:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
911:12:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
886:23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
860:23:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
836:12:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
812:12:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
755:00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
736:00:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
718:23:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
703:23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
682:23:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
657:23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
636:03:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
610:01:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
589:19:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
559:07:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
337:Wall Street Journal review
73:15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
530:15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
498:12:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
355:quoting Ng as an expert,
946:Please do not modify it.
512:and quoted as an expert
438:Cocktails with a Curator
382:Cocktails with a Curator
378:Cocktails with a Curator
32:Please do not modify it.
345:Washington Post article
784:nominated for deletion
333:New York Times article
522:ScottishFinnishRadish
349:Cleveland.com article
91:Articles for deletion
848:not being scientists
416:Wall Street Journal
426:The New York Times
309:CommanderWaterford
612:
591:
587:
500:
496:
319:
299:
282:
108:Guide to deletion
98:How to contribute
964:
908:
906:
833:
831:
810:
800:7&6=thirteen
752:
750:
715:
713:
679:
677:
632:
629:
586:
584:
577:
575:
573:
571:
555:
550:
495:
493:
486:
484:
482:
480:
396:
394:
353:The Paris Review
294:
277:
260:
258:
235:
234:
220:
168:
150:
88:
69:
64:
57:
34:
972:
971:
967:
966:
965:
963:
962:
961:
960:
954:deletion review
904:
902:
829:
827:
797:
748:
746:
711:
709:
675:
673:
630:
627:
592:
580:
578:
566:
564:
553:
548:
501:
489:
487:
475:
473:
392:
390:
292:
275:
256:
254:
177:
141:
125:
122:
85:
82:
67:
60:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
970:
968:
959:
958:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
889:
888:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
815:
814:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
660:
659:
638:
614:
613:
574:
563:
562:
561:
532:
483:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
402:
401:
371:
321:
320:
300:
283:
238:
237:
174:
121:
120:
115:
105:
100:
83:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
969:
957:
955:
951:
947:
942:
941:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
909:
907:
898:
893:
892:
891:
890:
887:
883:
879:
874:
871:
870:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
832:
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
813:
808:
807:
802:
801:
796:
792:
789:
785:
781:
780:Amy Ng videos
777:
773:
770:
769:
756:
753:
751:
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
716:
714:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
684:
683:
680:
678:
670:
666:
664:
663:
662:
661:
658:
654:
650:
649:Kaybeesquared
646:
642:
639:
637:
634:
633:
623:
619:
616:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
590:
585:
583:
572:
569:
560:
557:
556:
551:
544:
540:
536:
533:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
506:
503:
502:
499:
494:
492:
481:
478:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:Cleveland.com
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
397:
395:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:Vogue article
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
298:
295:
289:
284:
281:
278:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
259:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
95:
94:
92:
87:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
70:
65:
63:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
945:
943:
901:
897:WP:SECONDARY
873:Weakish Keep
872:
847:
826:
805:
799:
795:WP:Not paper
771:
745:
708:
686:
672:
668:
640:
626:
617:
581:
565:
546:
534:
504:
490:
474:
449:
445:
442:WP:SUSTAINED
437:
425:
421:WP:SECONDARY
415:
407:
389:
381:
377:
373:
324:
253:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
84:
61:
53:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
905:scope_creep
830:scope_creep
791:WP:Preserve
749:scope_creep
712:scope_creep
676:scope_creep
541:, on which
393:scope_creep
257:scope_creep
204:free images
645:WP:TOOSOON
582:Sandstein
491:Sandstein
950:talk page
742:WP:SIGCOV
554:Hurricane
505:Weak Keep
412:WP:SIGCOV
386:WP:SIGCOV
293:Spiderone
276:Spiderone
246:WP:SIGCOV
62:Phightins
37:talk page
952:or in a
917:She has
823:WP:THREE
728:Beccaynr
724:WP:BASIC
695:Beccaynr
691:WP:BASIC
602:Beccaynr
568:Relisted
543:WP:BASIC
477:Relisted
458:Beccaynr
454:WP:BASIC
434:WP:BASIC
361:Beccaynr
357:WP:BASIC
329:WP:BASIC
244:. Fails
171:View log
127:Aimee Ng
112:glossary
79:Aimee Ng
39:or in a
923:Johnbod
878:Johnbod
852:Johnbod
844:WP:PROF
776:YouTube
687:Comment
667:states
430:WP:PROF
408:Comment
374:Comment
210:WP refs
198:scholar
144:protect
139:history
89:New to
788:WP:HEY
622:WP:GNG
618:Delete
539:WP:GNG
535:Delete
250:WP:BIO
242:WP:SPS
182:Google
148:delete
446:Vogue
225:JSTOR
186:books
165:views
157:watch
153:links
16:<
927:talk
882:talk
856:talk
850:) .
772:Keep
732:talk
699:talk
653:talk
641:Keep
631:5969
628:Onel
606:talk
549:Java
526:talk
518:here
516:and
514:here
510:here
462:talk
410:Per
365:talk
327:per
325:Keep
313:talk
248:and
218:FENS
192:news
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
778:.
252:.
232:TWL
169:– (
929:)
921:.
884:)
858:)
793:,
734:)
701:)
655:)
624:.
608:)
600:.
528:)
464:)
367:)
315:)
307:.
290:.
273:.
212:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
56:Go
925:(
880:(
854:(
809:)
806:☎
803:(
730:(
697:(
651:(
604:(
524:(
460:(
363:(
311:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
167:)
129:(
114:)
110:(
68:!
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.