Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayana Evans


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ayana Evans

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable artist MurielMary (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft was declined by two AfC reviewers then improved and moved to main article space. Still insufficient evidence that subject meets the notability criteria for an artist. MurielMary (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The references and text, as well as WP:NBIO and WP:POTENTIAL, convince me that this article is notable. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * which of the criteria listed at the link below does the subject meet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals MurielMary (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep there is sufficient critical commentary or analysis in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. A bit buried in all the primary sources and interviews perhaps, but it's there. I can only get Re-envisioning the contemporary art canon through an inter-library loan, so I have not yet checked that, but it looks like a reliable source. Vexations (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

'''Thanks for clarifying, the article sufficiently meets the requirements on notability strengthened by reliable sources. See rundown of WP:CREATIVE checklist below: ::'''

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

YES - artist

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. YES - See Franklin Furnace Award, New York Times feature article, Professorship at Brown University, and the inclusion in an art history text book. (Re-envisioning the Contemporary Art Canon: Perspectives in a Global World. Taylor & Francis). These source examples (recognition from notable non-profit/grant-giving body, mainstream press, and employment) show that the artist is widely notable within the art world - as a practitioner but also as an educator teaching the next generation - and beyond.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

YES - Signature Public Guerrilla style, technique. "I Just Came Here to Find a New Husband"-series gained popularity and recognition within the art world and the mainstream - see press coverage. This project was also widely recognized in the black music community for a time. In addition, Evans is praised for her public Guerrila style work - encompassing "I Just Came Here to Find Husband," but also the use of her signature catsuit including but not limited to "Operation Catsuit" - as mentioned in the New York Times article and Re-envisioning the Contemporary Art Canon: Perspectives in a Global World. Taylor & Francis. The signature catsuit has also from time to time had considerable street credibility and recognition in Chelsea, NY. Performance is not a new phenomenon nor is street performance or participataory performance, but Evan's queer-friendly, feminist, and camp style that merges high and low, incorporating black visual culture in traditionally white spaces, including the public space, and her visual language is unique and something that has begun to be appropriated by other artists through her teaching and the dissemination of her practice.

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. YES - "Operation Catsuit" and "I Just Came Here to Find a Husband"

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

YES - Independent reviews include New York Times, Hyperallergic, MadameNoire, NY Art Beat, AP Press, and the WP aricle lists many more (this is in addition to passing mentions in major art publication artnet and a number of blogazines)

4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

B) YES - A substantial part of a significant exhibition. I quote from WP article: "The next year she completed a 10-hour endurance based, citywide performance and 100 person performative dinner party in the Barnes Foundation museum as part of "A Person of the Crowd" which was a major performance art survey featuring Marina Abramovic, Tania Bruguera, and William Pope L., among others." The Barnes Foundation is considered a significant art institution located in Philadelphia. It was founded by Albert Coombs Barnes (1872 – 1951) who, at the time, was avant-garde and a friend of the black community by inviting students of Lincoln University with a black president to collaborate, providing further context for the historical importance of Evan's large scale performance project. However, that is a side-note. In addition other notable venues that have shown Evan's work includes Museo Del Barrio, and Queens Museum.

It should be noted that Evan's is primarily a performance artist meaning that she has little physical work, nor does she have gallery representation. However, this is the case for many prominent performance and social practice based artists and should not constitute a reason to lessen her credibility. See also Suzanne Lacy who currently does not have a gallery but is leading in the field.

C) YES - Critical attention, as proved by awards, fellowships, articles, and exhibitions.

Editors note: On Wikipedia there is a lack of representation of African American artists, female artists, and performance artists - these individuals and groups are also marginalized beyond the Wikipedia sphere - in addition to being notable and recognized in the art world and the mainstream, the artist falls within these three categories of marginalized groups that we must give the representation and recognition that they deserve.

I appreciate the dedication from who reviewed the article once it was developed from its insufficient form and the user on the chat that helped me get the article to that point. In addition, I noticed that an image has been added from another user. To me this proves that there are many users who are working to keep this article published.

For its clear notability and the issue of representation I urge the community to do all they can for this article to remain.

What is your response ?

Matriarch-info (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article is not that the subject is not notable, but that much of the article has been copy/pasted from copyrighted sources. That material MUST be removed and possibly revdel'd. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, when I run it through a plagiarism checker it only caught on to the Wikipedia articles and the quotes which are cited. Please give some indication to which parts are copy-pasted as I think you are incorrect and may be referring to the quotes. Matriarch-info (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks! All amended. That was very helpful. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Ayana+Evans&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Matriarch-info (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the version I compared is a little older than the current one. This report should give the same results I got: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=999395377&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1 Vexations (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - another per WP:BEFORE, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SIGCOV. There is already a New York Times article and other hefty sources in this article. It needs clean-up, but AFD isn't for that. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't agree with 's interpretation of the notability criteria in relation to this subject. For example, I don't agree that someone who is an associate professor and mentioned in one textbook meets the criteria of "important in their field/widely cited by peers". I also don't agree that the catsuit is a "significant new concept", given that it's only recognisable in Chelsea, NY (as per the explanation above). I don't agree that participation in the Barnes Foundation event qualifies for criteria 4 (how many performers were involved? Was her contribution significant?). Matriarch-info has also added information above which doesn't relate to the WP criteria for notability e.g. that there are several editors working on this article (not measured towards a person's notability); that she is a member of under-represented groups (also not measured towards a person's notability). MurielMary (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the objections that MurielMay raises against claims of notabilty. Those claims are either not supported by policy at all, or idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. Having said that, after reading all the sources I was able to access, I find that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. What that practically means to me is that if I were to start the article from scratch, using only the information provided by those sources used now that are by consensus considered independent and reliable, I'd be able to write an article that comprehensively covers the subject. I support Keep. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I randomly looked at a few of the references (i.e. NYTimes.com), and they seem to meet WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Jeepday (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2021 (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.