Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. Venable


 * 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. consensus appears keep, and no discussion for three days except for one more keep vote. Closing as there is a clear consensus and no active discussion. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Charles L. Venable

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nomination on behalf of the subject, whose request (with permission) is copied below. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Museums and libraries,  and Indiana. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with significant coverage in several reliable sources, including three substantial articles in the NYT. If there's a problem with bias or undue coverage of events in his career, then let's fix the problem, rather than delete the article. There is some useful context at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines, then I'll withdraw my vote. Storchy (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines - there isn't, just the recommendation that in borderline cases we acquiesce to their request. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete of marginal notability; depth of coverage does not seem present, except as being mentioned in a few articles in passing related to one single controversy. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this seems borderline enough to delete.  -- Jayron 32 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per . I disagree that the notability here is a borderline case, or that everything is one controversy. This HuffPost article has some in-depth coverage of him, alongside coverage in this IndianpolisMonthly one and significant coverage in this ARTnews article, both of which are well before 2021. In conjunction with the mentioned NYT articles (including this extensive one), notability seems firmly established. I agree with Storchy that this is not a solution to the stated problem (though it does not seem like the article covers anything too much with undue weight either).--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep agree it could use a bit more balance, but coverage is coverage, good and bad. I see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you consider that the notability extends beyond one event? CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's the author of several scholarly texts and worked at the art museum. The "stuff" that happened is neither here nor there, but it helps establish notability, given the extensive NYTY feature. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I misjudged the BLP one event thing, User:Cerebral726 corrected me on that below. CT55555 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak delete (updated to weak after reading solid counter arguments) As per the very specific guidance contained within WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that seems to exactly match this scenario: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. CT55555 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will say, it remains to be determined whether there is "no rough consensus", so I'm not sure basing your argument on that policy makes sense to me. The consensus/lack of consensus needs to be reached before WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair, I guess I was pre-empting things a bit there, maybe the spirit of it still applies. I suppose to some extent I was running on empathy and trying to find policy to fit my opinion. I'll try harder to make my argument: Let's consider:
 * Is this guy really notable beyond one event? (The event: www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/arts/design/indianapolis-museum-job-posting.html)
 * Is that one negative event being used as a WP:COATRACK to justify keeping the article? i.e. it seems like the guy did something bad, lost his job over it, and wasn't a notable guy before that, but now we are using that to justify keeping an article up about him? I advocate for a bit of kindness for a retired museum curators desire for privacy. Check out this paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#The_Attack_Article CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughful response. I would assert the three articles I linked (this HuffPost article, this IndianpolisMonthly one, and this ARTnews article) are certainly enough to establish notability outside of the one event and pre-date the job posting event. The article also includes plenty of content about the good he did at the museums he's headed, despite the fact that a significant portion of coverage of him is about the multiple (instituting an admission fee, populism over traditional art displays, deaccession work, to name a few from the linked sources) controversial (not necessarily bad, but certainly controversial) decisions he made as head of the IMA/Newfields. It is not an overly critical article in my opinion, and is certainly not so damning that it justifies deleting the article when there is such evident notability versus trying in places to make the article more balanced where it is needed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you've refuted any "one event" basis to my delete argument, so I concede that.
 * My empathy for people not wanting articles about them, combined with him not being high profile, leads me to remain advocating for deletion, but I see that the strength of my delete is diminished by your fair and reasonable arguments. CT55555 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He's written at least 3 notable books and several articles in peer-reviewed journals, he certainly passes our requirements for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that now. I now consider that he meets the notability criteria, but still advocate for delete on the basis people's right to privacy, and his notability not being high, him seeming to get publicity without seeking it. I should maybe say "weak delete" as I recognise I'm making a weaker argument than I thought I was when I started. CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My impression is that having details of the "stuff" that happened to him posted here isn't helping his cred in the art world. It's not our concern, so long as the presentation here is fair and balanced. NPOV Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you consider there is any policy that would support some empathy in these circumstances (not very high profile person, wanting deletion)? CT55555 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the article's coverage already shows empathy by following WP:DUE. The article matches coverage readily available all over the internet, and the service Wikipedia provides as an amalgamation of that information is valuable enough that it outweighs one person's discomfort with it all being presented in a single place. Further, I would assert that Venable doesn't really qualify as a WP:LOWPROFILE person. The linked essay includes examples of "has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", and "has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." He has intentionally promoted himself multiple times to promote Newfields and the museum's he has headed, and given multiple interviews. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. All fair points. I'm currently somewhere between weak delete and abstain. CT55555 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I deleted my own comment above CT55555 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep he's been deputy director of a major American art museum and an important director of two regional art museums. His work attracted national attention and national media coverage in more than one place and at more than one time.Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I have done a substantial amount of editing on this page. I think that it tends to be a leaning a little critical. If making the article more neutral is not an option, than I would vote to delete it as per his request. Candied tangerine (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Candied tangerine (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is definitely an option to make the article more neutral. However, I'm not sure which aspects are overly critical beyond what is WP:DUE and well sourced. Do you have an opinion on what particular sections need to be edited? Cerebral726 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * :Wikipedia is intended to crowdsource truth. Clearly on this page, the warring 'editors' are not striving to contribute to a version of truth because that would contain various perspectives. Instead, they are attempting to obliterate any comments that conflict with their myopic interpretation. This behavior does not lead to truth. Given that, especially since it has been requested by the subject of the page, Wikipedia should delete this page. BobRoberts555 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Storchy (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per and, as long as it meets WP:DUE.  Mario  Jump  83!  02:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete.
 * Notability debatable, and based on the requesters comment it appears there is high likelihood that the regular editing that is being done is an attempt at disparagement or at least an opportunity to utilize the platform as a weapon against the requestor.
 * In the very least if this is a borderline case for removal then deferral to the persons privacy request should win out. JohnEventide (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Storchy (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * DELETE. Notability debatable. Reads more like a resume and self promotion. Based on the requesters comment it appears that the original creation and recent regular editing (even though all events happend greater than 2+ years ago) is being done is an attempt at disparagement or at least an opportunity to utilize the platform as a weapon against the requestor.
 * In the very least if this is a borderline case for removal then deferral to the persons privacy request should win out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martini3202 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC) — Martini3202 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Two very similar comments in succession from accounts with only one edit above are testing the limits of my ability to assume good faith. Martini3202 are you also JohnEventide ? CT55555 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder about the agenda of people who have such strong feelings opposing the request of an individual to seek privacy. I would suggest that if Mr. Venable would rather not be the target of petty sniping, he has that right. Please delete. 97.85.87.21 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel confident enough to say that the people who want to keep this article (the people who have therefore disagreed with me) most certainly are making the case because of their enthusiasm for this encyclopaedia project. CT55555 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and make sure it's accurate (Venable should spell out all inaccuracies on the talk page and work with editors), well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * DELETE. After reading the arguments for and against the deleting of this article, I would agree to deleting it. Wikipedia is a source used for informational and educational purposes. There does not seem to be sufficient or pertinent information in this article that can be used for information or educational purposes.  In the subject's own words, he feels he is not of a notable source and is concerned about the validity and accuracy of the information presented that he has had no control over.  The article reads like a resume and a corporate bio, outlining a timeline of his career.  As someone connected to the art world, I cannot see any redeeming merit in keeping this article on someone who appears so normal and inconsequential, and just wants to live a private life.  He is like any other museum director who has worked hard during his career, wrote a few publications, promoted his museum for the greater public good, retired, and now wishes to invoke his right to privacy.  I find it curious that there are a few people advocating for keeping this article on someone who is not notable, just worked hard in career field, resigned, and now doing some minor consulting in his retirement.  Nobody is talking about this subject in the art world, there has been no national news or crisis connection with this person, and I venture to say that he is now like an art relic or museum piece that few know of and nobody cares about.  Again, DELETE this article and save everyone the time and effort of caring about a subject that wants to invoke his privacy and remain inconsequential. Arifjan2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC) — Arifjan2020 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * (refactored discussion to put Arifjan reply in the right placeJahaza (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC))

Comment I think so far we have five or six single purpose accounts, whose entire edit history is on the topic of Mr Veneble. I would encourage who ever closes this to take a quick look at the edit history of each of the editors whose name is in red to assess if there is an unlikely pattern of new editors all starting their wikipedia journey on this specific page, or perhaps something else happening. CT55555 (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable and the article should be corrected to ensure accuracy rather than destroyed. IrishOsita (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2022 (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.