Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer Glass (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Queer Glass
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Originally sent for deletion in 8 June 2019. Rationale by User:Bearcat stated as: ''Original research article which tries to invent an art genre. This is referenced primarily to sources which verify the existence of glass artists who identify as LGBTQ, alongside a couple of sources that tangentially verify stray facts like the definition of "LGBTQ" and the broad overall history of LGBTQ art — but not a single source here actually discusses or contextualizes "queer glass" as a recognized or defined genre of art in its own right. As always, "people who happen to be both X and Y" do not automatically always constitute their own distinct genre: art critics would have to identify and analyze "queer glass" as a thing before a Wikipedia article about it became appropriate''    scope_creep Talk  06:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I wasn't sure about the simple re-stating of a 2 year old deletion nomination but I went and did some digging and, honestly, I don't think the availability of sources has substantially improved. Or really changed at all. There are still sources that incidentally put the two words together in the context of unusual glass, unusual spectacles, the queer "lens", glass blowers that are pro-LGBT (but not exclusively about making glass products for LGBT people), and other such things. But really nothing that supports the suggestion that there is some specific art movement or school or concept or trend that expresses queer-ness through the medium of glass. I'm sure that there are some artists who might do so, and even some who have dedicated particular pieces or collections to an LGBT cause or concept. But that's not the same thing as the subject here Its difficult, then, to conclude that this is anything other than synthesis. Indeed, the only place this idea exists is here on Wikipedia, and that's obviously not appropriate. The article itself has been filled to the brim with "references" (most of which make no mention of the term, let alone give it significant coverage) but relies heavily on this blog, the publishers of which also publish a local "newsmagazine". The blog post in question actually references the first deletion discussion here on Wikipedia, and then republishes an essay (of sorts) from the person our new article credits with having invented the term. Its the worst kind of self-referential circular sourcing.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see two new museum sources added to this article, including (arguably) the best known glass museum in the world in Tacoma, which according to the reference hosted a discussion on the term "Queer Art" and what it means. The fact that the planet's leading art museum did this, is clear evidence to the most casual reader that this term exists in the glass world and not just in Wikipedia as noted above. As for the "cicular sourcing" I do not what's so odd about the museum lecture being done by the artist credited with inventing the term? It would be like Clement Greenberg discussing the Color Field genre of painting. I do not find it difficult at all to conclude the existance of the term, and suspect that since a few museums have now used it in ehibitions, that outweighs any WIkipedia's editors personal opinion of the validity of the term. --JaxChix (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they hosted a talk by Tim Tate (self-credited with having created the term); a talk he named after the term he created. Within the announcement for that talk, the term itself is hyperlinked (in place of an explanation of the term) and directs to a Wikipedia mirror with a copy of our own article and its explanation that Tate created the term. Even if we accept that Tate created the term (an assertion that, as far as I can tell, cannot even be verified) we still need for the term to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Otherwise, the only source available to support this Wikipedia article, is this Wikipedia article.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Stalwart111 makes a very compelling case here. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON and maybe better sources treating this subject more fully will emerge in the future. At the moment the basis of the article seems to basically be Tate - so could we not merge any of the good stuff from this article into his article? I also really don't see the utility of a list of non-notable "Queer Glass" Artists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally a worthwhile suggestion, Vlad, but in this case even that would be circular. Tate first thanks someone for using the term (in passing) in this blog post in 2019 and, in that post, then ascribes the term some broader meaning or use. But to define what "Queer Glass" is supposed to mean, he cites the original Wikipedia article itself. That blog post did not exist until this article existed (in its original form), not the other way around. We would be using a blog post that cites a previous iteration of this Wikipedia article as a source for this Wikipedia article. Merging the content elsewhere doesn't change that very significant problem, unfortunately.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken. So my understanding is this article was mainly formed on the back of a singular LBTQI+ Glass art exhibition and then became one of those weird cases of a WP article influencing its own subject. This probably happens more than we realise. No way this meets GNG. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it might have been a single throwaway line in one particular introductory speech at one specific art exhibition, but yes, you're exactly right. And I suspect you're exactly right about it happening more often than we realise.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just reminded myself that WP:WINARS exists... I love that acronym.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Circular referencing at its worst. Fails WP:GNG when the bad sources are discounted. Mlb96 (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Removed the "circular referencing from the article based on the feedback from this page -- It seems to me that this issue became the rallying point for deletion, while ignoring a limited - yes, limited - but nonetheless existing multiple references to the genre term in now several publications, which included a fully-titled major exhibition in Pittsburgh. --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you removed one reference from the article. It still includes - in the lede - the claim that the term was described in the Old Town Crier. But that very first reference itself describes the first time the author encountered it; here on Wikipedia. As does the other blog entry that blog references. All paths lead back to Wikipedia. And even if that were not the case, use of the term in the title of a thing isn't significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whether or not multiple shows have used the term, this is a pretty textbook example of how the intersection of two notable things (art glass and LGBTQ artists) does not inherently create a subject notable in itself. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. I think this clearly fits under neologism policy; and we need far better sourcing to establish it as an encyclopedic worthy concept.4meter4 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 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.