Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Violence of Gender


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Violence of Gender

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

a short exhibition which probably has no enduring historical significance, how can it be possible to create an article for a single museum exhibition like this, otherwise all museums should by far have a long lists of articles of their exhibitions and talks. 淺藍雪 ❉ 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Some background on the article: It was created as part of the Asia Art Archive Women in Art Edit-a-thon in Hong Kong, in which new users are asked to write about female artists and art-related articles. A participant, who was a brand new user, wished to create an article on the exhibit. I decided she could do it after she found one local news article (in Chinese) from The Stand News (立場新聞) and one from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), which would satisfy WP:GNG. As a volunteer at the event I'm aware several articles on other art exhibitions had been created as part of these events. I am interested in knowing whether there is notability criteria specific to art exhibitions (other than GNG), but if not I would use GNG as the guidepost.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question I found WikiProject_Contemporary_Art/Notability. I'll quote it from here:
 * An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
 * Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
 * An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
 * Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
 * Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted."
 * Since Hong Kong is an SAR, it is de facto treated as a small country for the purposes of "national" reporting, so I would count the SCMP as "national" in this regard. The issue is whether this event will exceed the "news cycle" factor.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Notability is not temporary", and nothing could convince me that this is not a temporary event, and I really doubt a report from the SCMP would make it non-temporary and different from other normal museum events. It may have notability, but a very short one. I would say it is better to wait for some experts on articles about events to judge.-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that the SCMP article is a review by Rachel Cheung (SCMP culture reporter) that goes in detail about the exhibit's themes and the reviewer's opinion of the works, not merely a news announcement that the exhibit's happening. A review of the exhibit would make the case of notability much stronger. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I still do not think a review is enough to make the event non-temporary, and "the SCMP is a national media" does not make sense to me either.-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 20:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "the SCMP is a national media" - The SCMP is treated as a newspaper of record of Hong Kong (essentially one of the most important newspapers). Secondly, while Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty, it maintains its own borders and customs, autonomous government, currency, etc., and therefore is treated similarly to a small country. This makes the SCMP a "national" publication of Hong Kong. The guidelines on events say "national" coverage has more weight than strictly "local". WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I interpret WP:NTEMP as saying that once notability is established, it is permanent. The temporary nature of the subject is irrelevant: The Armory Show is notable, even though it only lasted 8945 days days. In retrospect that exhibit was very significant. But we're not here to decide if The Violence of Gender is historically significant (it's too early to tell) but if there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Vexations (talk)
 * There are two independent published sources that make commentary on the subject: SCMP review and The Stand News (in Chinese) - you can google translate to see what this one says, roughly WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Three, I think. I added a review by Katherine Volk. Vexations (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The publisher is CoBo Social International Co., Limited and the author of the review is a freelance journalist. I think I can say Keep for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the sources are not adequate to establish notability over time. The Armory show, mentioned above, is notable because it has occurred over time and been very widely reviewed. This is a single exhibition with three reviews. If we say that's enough, then we could apply the same criteria to tens of thousands of shows a year. Additionally the only thing the article tells me is that it happened ona certain date, a list of artists participated, and then it goes on to paraphrase the SCMP. We aren't a directory of things that happened, nor are we a news source.  ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The notability standard for books, for example, is at least two independent secondary sources giving commentary on the subject. The SCMP gives an analysis and commentary, and articles are supposed to paraphrase that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I'm not persuaded that short exhibitions are inherently non-notable. WP:NEVENTS seems to suggest the topic might or might not be notable but, since this guideline claims to be interpreting pre-existing guidelines I'll refer to WP:N where the guidance indicates the topic may be presumed to merit an article. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found some other reviews too - 'Society’s veiled gender violence laid bare in Hong Kong exhibition' in The Art Newspaper (published yesterday), and 'It runs deeper than #MeToo' in China Daily . As the exhibition has another month to run, there will probably be more reviews (including in arts journals which have a longer publishing timeline), but we already have 5. The article could be expanded with more discussion from these reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2019 (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.