Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Long


 * 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. Although there is consensus to delete, I'm taking a moment to note how happy I am to read the analysis and discussion of WP:NARTIST between and  -- I've seen many stupid arguments at AfD, and it's always refreshing to see actual  policy-based discussion. That's the right thing to do at AfD, even if it doesn't result in substantive agreement between parties. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Long

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Little or no independent coverage that I can see.  E Eng  02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Relevant guidance is at WP:NARTIST.  General Ization   Talk   03:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry, meant to say I also checked NARTIST and see zero evidence any of its four points is satisfied.  E Eng  03:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything, I think it would qualify under GNG. While most of the sources are primary and/or non-RS, the Pittsburgh-Gazette and Washington Post would be sufficient to satisfy notability in and of themselves, if not for the fact that the coverage is just not detailed or significant enough in either.  S n o w  let's rap 04:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Gazette's "coverage" of the subject reads, in its entirety:
 * Amanda Long, a video artist from Carnegie Mellon University, created this part of the exhibit. Silly Faces' is a video mural," Ms. Long said. "The wall holds 96 videos [at a time] ... My hope is that everyone gets five seconds of stardom."
 * And the Washington Post:
 * Another exhibit, called “Strike a Pose,” lets children create self-portraits in the form of five-second videos. Twenty-five of the videos then appear in a square grid projected on a wall in this installation designed by New York-based artist Amanda Long. The activity gets kids to think broadly about portraiture, which can include moving and interactive images as well as traditional oil paintings, Kasemeyer says.
 * This isn't even close to GNG material.  E Eng  04:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be more or less exactly what I said.  S n o w  let's rap 21:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd misunderstood you.  E Eng  23:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I worked my way through the references in the article, they are all either self-published (apparently by the subject of the article) or just mentions in passing and none of which establish notability in general or meet WP:NARTIST in particular. - Nick Thorne  talk  04:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No convincing evidence is presented to support notability, and none of the criteria at NARTIST are met. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nick Thorne. I thought this could be of some use but apparently it has problems too (thread at Amanda Long talk). Also, there´s an indication that the subject is annoyed and wants deletion ("I am going to delete it as soon as I can"):. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, no, this is a pity as she's evidently a serious artist doing something interesting, but as yet there are no decent independent sources to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:NARTIST; 1. the figure is not regarded as an important figure, nor is she widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The figure is known for originating a new concept, however, the significance of said concept is, as yet, null. 3. The figure is not known for creating a significant body of work that has been the primary subject of an independent notable work or multiple independent notable articles or reviews. 4. The figure's work is not a) a significant monument, b) has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, c) does not appear to have won significant critical attention, but, d) has been represented at at least one notable gallery or musuem; National Portrait Gallery (United States), however, this does not satisfy the criteria of is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums as it is not part of the permanent collection, afaict, nor does one notable gallery equal the prerequisite of several. In essence, there is potential for notability in the figure's career, however, they are not notable as of now. I don't feel the need to bother with GNG as the figure is even further removed from meeting any of those requirements then they are from the NARTIST one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I consider National portrait gallery as sufficient, I'm not going to quibble on the criteria this way.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move I just added a paragraph to the article about the history of one of the subject's works, the one on display at the National Portrait Gallery. It is also in two permanent collections, although the permanent collections do not belong to particularly notable galleries or museums (the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh International Airport). I feel like this installation might be notable in its own right, although I'm entirely unfamiliar with what guideline would cover that. We could retool this article such that the primary topic is the "Silly Faces" / "Strike a Pose" installation, with the artist's "bio" (which is threadbare) and other works included as subsections. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that the two are "permanent"? Or is that the default assumption unless something says otherwise? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * may have answered this question below, but in this context "permanent" means that the venue owns the piece. The Children's Museum of Pittsburgh lists the installation as "For rent or sale", which means they must legally own it. For the airport to own the art inside it is my default assumption. Snuge purveyor (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't work by default assumptions. which means they must legally own it – huh? I've got a rental broker who offers my apartments for rent or sale, and she certainly doesn't own them; I do. The claims of notability on this page are held together with chewing gum and baling wire.  E Eng  10:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The artist's site points out that Silly Faces is in the "permanent collections" of (named) children's museums in Pittsburgh, Connecticut, and Ohio. I understand that her site doesn't count for Notability, but can we at least take her as an authority on to whom she sells her work? The work in question has toured to Winnipeg, Canada for goodness' sake. I don't know why you keep insisting that it isn't notable. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng, I confess I don't work in curation, but I don't think museums typically act as brokers for the artists of their pieces. I feel like you're making very unlikely assumptions. Snuge purveyor (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per NARTIST 4 (b) and 4 (d). Newimpartial (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point to the sources supporting (b) "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" or (d) "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums".  E  Eng  23:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Portal was a substantial part of significant exhibition at the Socrates Sculpture park, and her work has been acquired for the permanent collections of the National Portrait Gallery and the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh. I understand that the Children's Museum would not normally be considered a 'notable gallery', but given the focus of her work, its prominence in the permanent collection of that Museum, and the touring installations of her work elsewhere in Pittsburgh and in other parts of the United States, I believe in this context it qualifies (in fact, as noted above, 'Silly Faces' quite possibly qualifies as a significant work in its own right, meeting WP:N and therefore qualifying Long under WP:NARTIST, bullet 3).
 * In the world of installation art for children, I am not sure that she has many rivals, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What "significant exhibition" at Socrates Sculpture Park? From it appears that it was on display, then removed; by this reasoning anything ever exhibited anywhere lends notability to the artist. The National Portrait Gallery or Children's Museum stuff does not appear to be permanent; if I'm wrong, point to sources.  E  Eng  00:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, I know I said I was done, but the comment immediately above expresses especially well that the nominator in this AfD does not have an appropriate understanding of what a 'permanent collection' means in the context of installation art. (Which is a perspective they express consistently in the rest of the discussion, especially the current BLUDGEONing .) By the nom's logic, it is highly likely that no installation art, and certainly a negligible amount of audiovisual installation art, would count towards WP:N 4 (d). Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, you're straying into WP:NPA territory here, you might be best advised to strike most of this comment, especially the sentence within the parentheses. Please confine your comments to the subject at hand rather than making comments about other editors. -  Nick Thorne  talk  03:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick, but I never worry about what someone with 1400 edits thinks of me.  E Eng  10:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Portal was part of the annual emerging artists' exhibition at the Socrates Sculpture Park; these exhibitions are curated and publicized and I don't see why they would not be significant. The Children's Museum installations, by all accounts, were acquired for its permanent collection; one of them has been in place for seven years and I have no idea on what basis it could be considered NOT to be "permanent". The National Portrait Gallery installation was acquired for a "long-term" children's exhibition, which I believe places the work in the Gallery's "permanent collection" regardless of how many years the installation stays in place. I believe the intent of "permanent" in NARTIST is to distinguish permanently owned works from touring exhibitions, not to require that a work remain on the gallery's walls in perpetuity in order to be Notable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources showing all this, please?  E Eng  00:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * New York: for the annual exhibition Portal was in
 * Pittsburgh: which shows that the installation opened in 2010
 * Washington: ; documents that the exhibition has no end date, and is clearly an example of strategic outreach to children.
 * All of this should have been part of your WP:BEFORE.
 * Based on your link, the exhibition is just some exhibition; what makes it "significant"? And "No end date" is nothing like "permanent collection". This is really straining. In any event, after all this fussing, the article's own sources continue to consist of one-to-three sentence mentions of the subject and her works; there's nothing even close to GNG, which in the end is all that counts.  E  Eng  00:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is their annual exhibition, for which she was awarded their emerging artist fellowship. Why would their annual exhibition not be significant?
 * And I am really not sure what you think "permanent collection" means in the context of a museum, but when they buy a work outright or commission a work outright, my understanding is that by definition that places it in the "permanent collection" which is the contrary of guest exhibitions at a major gallery (which do not contribute to N).
 * Remember, Notability is a property of the subject, not the article; she is Notable regardless of the actual sourcing of the article. Which is what BEFORE is for. Newimpartial (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would their annual exhibition not be significant? Because you're not showing us anything suggesting that it is significant. So far it's just some exhibition. It can't be that every artist that has a piece in just any exhibition at any sculpture park or gallery is notable.
 * when they buy a work outright or commission a work outright I don't see anything about any of these works being bought of commissioned.
 * Remember, Notability is a property of the subject, not the article Thanks for the primer on how notability works. the article has several people working hard to stuff every possible source into it, and at this point it's safe to assume that if GNG was going to be satisfied, it would be by now. If there are any more sources that you think would help, now would be the time to list them.  E Eng  01:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that an annual exhibition by a notable sculpture park that uses the work of its fellowship recipients would be significant. If the Socrates Sculpture Park isn't notable, why does en-wp have an article on it?
 * I also find your "every possible source" comment ironic, since the sourcing I have done for this little dialogue has overlapped only slightly with the sourcing of the article. Are you reading these sources at all? I feel like I am wasting my time.
 * As far as the commissioned work is concerned, the National Portrait Gallery paid $12,033 to her last fiscal year . If you wouldn't call that a commission, what would you call it? It clearly paid her to install her creative work in the new children's extension. The Pittsburgh museum describes the work as "created for them by Amanda Long" - are you under the impression she gave it to them for free, when she was paid for her installations in New York and Washington? That would be a rather peculiar assumption.
 * GNG is satisfied by NARTIST bullet 3, regarding "Silly Faces", and by NARTIST 4 b) and d), regarding Portal and her work owned by the National Portrait Gallery and the Pittsburgh Children's Museum. Sure, you may not agree, but I suggest that you drop the WP:BLUDGEON. I am also tired of providing sources for you for really obvious things (the museums acquired the works). Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, there are plenty of parks and galleries that are notable and have articles, but it can't be that every exhibit they put on is itself "significant" (whatever that means, exactly) because then, by your reasoning, every artist participating in every exhibit in every gallery with a WP article would, himself/herself, be notable. That just can't be. There has to be some dividing line between "significant" and not (e.g. coverage of that exhibit itself?).
 * By "every possible source" I meant every source that might contribute to GNG. None of your sources do, because like all sources on this subject (in the article or listed here) they're never more than one-to-three-sentence vagaries.
 * Your link for the $12,033 is indeed enlightening. It's for "PROJECT COORDINATOR FOR SEPTEMBER 2016 HSI/ICE WORKSHOP" – not purchase or commission of an artwork. Despite what you say, she may very well have given given or loaned her artwork without compensation. We just don't know. Ars gratia artis.
 * GNG is satisfied by NARTIST: Topic area–specific notability guidelines don't "satisfy GNG" – that makes no sense. They're shortcuts to tentative conclusions. If, as here, there's no satisfaction of GNG, that's all that matters in the end.  E Eng  10:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you see; that is what happens when I am tired and BLUDGEONed: I make mistakes. That was the wrong Amanda Long; the Smithsonian deals with an LA-based curator by that name, who is a different (and irrelevant) person. That's to whom the invoice I cited applied, as either of us would have known after an elementary WP:BEFORE, which I did this morning.
 * It is absurd to suggest that the Smithsonian's Explore! Children's extension accepted free installation art from anybody, and I submit again that this reflects the nom's poor grasp of the world of professional installation art.
 * I am proposing that the major annual exhibition of a notable sculpture park (not some random park with an article) is significant; the nom's comment "by your reasoning, every artist participating in every exhibit in every gallery ... would ... be notable" is a complete straw man. I have always been talking about the major annual exhibition of the Socrates.
 * By the way, Long also contributed Swings to the 2011 Bring to Light festival, and also contributed to the LUMEN festival on Staten Island - both being contributions to significant exhibitions, which are not even mentioned in the article. Coverage exists for both of these art festivals. Do we see a pattern, yet?
 * Finally, EEng, you are mixing up the GNG's requirement that reliable sources exist for the article (which they certainly do) with the requirement that the subject be Notable, which can be met either by the GNG general criteria or by the relevant SNG, in this case NARTIST. I have documented the statements I have made about the disposition of her work in permanent collections and have given numerous examples of work that meets NARTIST 4 (b), as well. Fine, you disagree, but could we at least drop the WP:BLUDGEON? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
 * It is absurd to suggest that the Smithsonian's Explore! Children's extension accepted free installation art from anybody: Why is that absurd? The Smithsonian accepts donations and loans all the time.
 * Your ideas about SNGs, GNG, and notability are completely confused.  E Eng  11:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm confused. From the GNG, first section "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
 * It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Newimpartial (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the word presumed.  E Eng  11:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. From further down the GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
 * So Notability ends up being a determination, following this presumption, made in a "more in-depth discussion" of their encyclopaedic suitability. Subjects for whom reliable sources exist, that are not WP:NOT, which can be written about without WP:UNDUE bias, and which (in relevant cases) meet subject-specific guidelines, ought to be included in Wikipedia - or, at least, ought not to be deleted once they exist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When you have more experience you'll understand.  E Eng  11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it make any difference to the satisfaction of our SNG if the pieces in permanent collections were acquired for free? Snuge purveyor (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me. Somewhere back in this joke of a debate, Newimpartial tried to demonstrate that some of these works had been "commissioned", or something.  E Eng  11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a link from the Association of Children's Museums for Silly Faces  which shows how the interative video Silly Faces are sold or rented. Her name and price are listed 11 K-20 K.  pussandboots  —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  — pussandboots (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, according to  E  Eng . Readers are invited to look into this for themselves.Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The artwork Silly Faces was included in SIGGRAPH ASIA 2011 - SA '11 SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 Art Gallery Article No. 2 pussandboots  — comment added 8:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  — pussandboots (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, according to  E  Eng . Readers are invited to look into this for themselves.Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, by all means click on pussandboots' edit history to view his/her ten (10!) edits total, all made immediately before commenting here; one also might want to check out Newimpartial's edit history to understand his/her unfamiliarity with standard practices such as applying spa tags to SPAs commenting at AfD.  E  Eng  15:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC) The relevant policy being WP:SPA: "A user who appears to have an apparent focus on a narrow set of matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia." In my view, this criterion is not met simply because the editor made only 10 previous edits. !Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC) That's OK. When you yourself have more experience you'll understand; in the meantime the rest of us already do.  E  Eng  15:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first of these is a paid for link (otherwise known as advertising) whilst the second is an article written by Ms Long and which shows a download history of only 3 downloads. Neither of these listings come anywhere remotely near establishing GNG. -  Nick Thorne  talk  13:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nick Thorne - The Association of Children's Museum is not a ad it is network of professionals. The page was meant to show that Amanda Long is paid for her work which you all are debating. Why don't you actually do some research?


 * EEng you have white nationalist propoganda on your page and we all really wish you would stop participating in this conversation. You are clearly never going to allow any female or person of color have bio on wikipedia as our entire edit history show your racism and bias


 * Also you didn't read the WP article it does have more on the artist and links her to a pioneer in video Bill Viola: "Another exhibit, called “Strike a Pose,” lets children create self-portraits in the form of five-second videos. Twenty-five of the videos then appear in a square grid projected on a wall in this installation designed by New York-based artist Amanda Long. The activity gets kids to think broadly about portraiture, which can include moving and interactive images as well as traditional oil paintings, Kasemeyer says.“I think it ties in nicely to the rest of the museum — especially the Bill Viola exhibition up right now. He’s a video artist, and perhaps children will look differently at his work after making their own videos,” she says."
 * You don't have the consesus to delete this Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pussandboots (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — Pussandboots (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Association of Children's Museums link is indeed an ad, as evidenced by its "Search the classifieds" box and big red "POST AN AD" buttons.  E Eng  23:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here are links to current versions of my user page, talk page , and contribution history. Now where, exactly, is the white nationalist propaganda, racism, and bias? Just one or two examples will do.  E Eng  23:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that "unintentionally left blank" userbox is very white. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are formally invited to join my glittering salon of talk page stalkers.  E Eng  16:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I´m honored. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No response being received after 24 hours, it's clear to all that you just make shit up to paint yourself and the subject as victims. If it hurts your feelings to hear that, you can dial WHINE-1-1 for a waaahmhulance. Take your idiot accusations elsewhere.  E Eng  23:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. I've put your nonsense in BIG BOLD so everyone can admire your foolishness.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Try and play nice one more week.....
 * Delete EEng makes a very good case for why GNG should prevail here. We have no sustained coverage in reliable sourcing to the level that we would expect for a BLP. The additional involvement of SPAs plus the self-published sourcing at the article also makes it likely that its creation was intended as promotionalism. Taken together, these two factors should move us to delete the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - wow, tensions are rising here. But there is simply not enough in-depth sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete She has had some exhibitions, but as various posters have said, that doesn't guarantee notability.No independant RS establishing this.I'm sure as her career progressess, she will get some so a case of WP:TOOSOON Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NARTIST failure, and the arguments in many of the delete comments above. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: whatever your interpretation of WP:NARTIST, WP:N is clear that WP:GNG supersedes all specific notability guidelines.   Dr Strauss   talk   13:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.