Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Rivers Ryan


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Tina Rivers Ryan

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

The coverage of in reliable sources is minimal. Mostly it consists of very brief mentions (exceprpted below) and quotes that she provided for context on other subjects.
 * dailyfreeman is coverage of a wedding
 * artnews says "Tina Rivers Ryan, a curator with a focus on media art at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York," and provides a quote
 * independent "Tina Rivers Ryan, a curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo with expertise in digital art" and a quote
 * bbc "Dr Tina Rivers Ryan, an art historian and curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo, New York, finds that the power lies in Salah’s posture." and a quote
 * buffalo "Tina Rivers Ryan, assistant curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery"
 * artforum is WP:ROUTINE coverage of an appointment
 * nytimes "said Tina Rivers Ryan, a curator at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo with expertise in digital art" and a quote
 * wbfo "Vanouse and co-curator Tina Rivers Ryan provided background during an afternoon tour of Albright-Knox Northland" and "Tina Rivers Ryan says" with several quotes. Vexations (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No in-depth sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Comment - just for the record, the listed WBFO article isn't just a tour Ryan gave - it talks about an ongoing exhibition co-curated by her for which critical commentary exists, at least this article in The Brooklyn Rail. Bridget (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – meets WP:Basic, this is a stub - and if you want to go deeper with more citations it is possible. She is notable in her field, curation of digital art, which you can tell by the numerous mentions in mainstream news publications. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Put them in then to prove they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
 * I will try to do so. Please also note her work is in multiple national libraries, as you can see from the authority control. If anyone else wants to pitch in to help, please do so. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that this AfD has been alerted by its creator on the Women in Red talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
 * How do library holdings of a book establish notability for the (co)author? Most libraries are not at all selective, but the BNF and especially the Library of Congress collect just about anything that gets published. Vexations (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to answer your question and perhaps I am mistaken re: library holding having any significance. I apologize. Ryan has a lot of mentions in the news and in books (per BASIC), and there are citations specifically about her which have also been added in my expansion effort of the article. I am confused because the last time I checked the wiki rules, we did not make article deletion nominations in the case of thinking something needs clean up and a quick google search of her name indicates her presence? And yes, I had asked for clean up help from WiR because I have been busy (i.e. the pandemic), and the WiR project event was related to the creation of this stub. I apologize if I am not allowed to ask for help(?), I had assumed wikipedia was for collaboration. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to apologize. Of course you are allowed to ask for help, but we have consensus that canvassing is inappropriate. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless the post has changed, I don't see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red as a canvassing violation. @PigeonChickenFish is asking for citations to help in the decision making process, not help necessarily to !vote keep. Star   Mississippi  16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I worded my response poorly. I did not mean to imply that there was canvasssing. I wanted to point out that we differentiate between "help me !vote for my preferred outcome" and "help me improve (something)" and that asking for any kind of assistance in improving an article or a discussion or understanding of policy etc. is very much encouraged. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article had 8 citations at the time of nomination, and as of today it has 16 citations. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources that are in the article now, that were not present in the version that I brought to this discussion are
 * www.caareviews.org
 * www.voca.network
 * brooklynrail.org
 * jingculturecommerce.com
 * record.horacemann.org
 * www.corneliamag.com
 * www.ubspectrum.com
 * www.wgrz.com Of those, corneliamag stands out as a source that is entirely about the subject, but it is also an interview, so it is not a secondary source. Vexations (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Assistant curator at the prestigious Albright-Knox Art Gallery and published art historian. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just holding a job and publishing stuff does not confer notability. What are needed are multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject and there don't seem to be any. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
 * There are many sources (and that is enough for BASIC). However the nomination here glosses over all of the sources specifically about Ryan's work - and many of which have depth (for example see the comment left earlier by Bridget). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just about an exhibition, not about her. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Exactly what do you think her work is, if not an exhibition? She works as a curator at a museum. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It just shows that she is doing her job (no doubt excellently). However that does not make a person notable. The sources show that she exists, but not that she is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. Assistant curator rather than head curator, at a regional museum rather than one at the national level of say the Met or MOMA (to pick two in the same state), definitely is not enough for automatic notability. We would need in-depth coverage of her work, sufficient to pass GNG. What we have is: non-in-depth listings of her marriage and degree; International but not in depth coverage merely quoting her as an expert on digital art (Artnews, The Independent, NYT, Jing), a local report on a talk she gave (The Horace Mann Record), the University of Buffalo promoting an exhibit co-curated with a UB faculty member (not independent; both the UB and Spectrum sources); a non-in-depth announcement that she was hired (Artforum); a non-reliable blog post, badly linked and disallowed as a source on a BLP (VOCA); local coverage of her exhibits (WBFO, WGRZ) an in-depth interview (Cornelia), and a single non-local in-depth review of an exhibit (Brooklyn Rail). The only sources among these that count at all towards notability for me are the WBFO, WGRZ, Cornelia, and Brooklyn Rail ones. If you are one of those editors who discount local sources and interviews as counting towards notability, then all that's left would be the Brooklyn Rail, not enough. I tend to think that WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE don't actually say anything about locality of sources and that discounting interviews as primary is a stretch, so the other three can count for me, but they're not very convincing. What pushes me from weak delete to weak keep is that we do have multiple major international sources that do not provide depth of coverage, but do make a credible claim that she is known as an expert on digital art. They don't directly contribute to Wikipedia-defined notability, but they make me more sympathetic to the idea that, as a known expert, she is the sort of person we should have an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Albright–Knox Art Gallery is a major collection. Not like MoMA, but a major museum like the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. It just happens to be in Buffalo, not NYC. Hardly regional. It is a big deal to be a curator there. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: she's an Assistant Curator per . The chief curator is Cathleen Chaffee. I do think that the Albright-Knox is a museum with an international, rater than regional scope. Definitely not a "local museum". I'll note that we have an article on Janne Sirén, the museum's director, but none of the curatorial staff, except TRR. Vexations (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep several editors have listed reasons to Keep, will trust their judgment. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Mild keep Nothing in Jstor, she's got a few hits in Gscholar, but they don't appear to be papers, one looks like a .mp4 file of a lecture? She's got enough hits in the ArtNews or ArtForum, so she's relatively well-known. We know about the Knox-Albright here in Toronto, it's more than a local art gallery, more like a renowned, regional museum. I think this person is just over the line for notability.Oaktree b (talk)
 * Comment as an aside, I've had a few of these Women in Red articles come up in the deletion process that I either worked on or started/created. Seems counter productive if we (Wikipedia as a whole) ask for the article to be created then nominate it for deletion later. I would assume there is at least a basic level of vetting before they add them to the WiR list, is there not? Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * from my personal experience, no vetting required although some conversations end up taking suggestion A and end up discussing that subject within category B if it seems they don't yet meet GNG or the applicable SNG. Star   Mississippi  03:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , Heads up that an appearance on a WiR "redlist" is not an indicator of notability. They are automatically generated from data in Wikidata. The lists have the language "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify." at the top. I know it gets lost in all the other text, but it is there. I also made the same mistake of thinking if a name was on a redlist, it was of a notable person. Wikidata is far more inclusive than English Wikipedia will ever be. There is a redlist of Badminton players listing over 5,000 players. Cause for a lot of head-scratching. Anyway, you do have to check that the subject meets notability criteria. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete assistant curator is about as significant as assistant professor--it normally means not yet notable. The quality of the museum is irrelevant--all museums have junior staff who are not yet notable.  . Being quoted briefly in articles about other people is not significant coverage. The way WiR articles can avoid deletion is by 1. taking care to select the many really notable people who do not yet have WP articles--(for example Cathleen Chaffee as mentioned above, who is the actual curator, not one of the assistants, and 2. writing encyclopedia articles  that don't include minor material--that inevitable give the impression there isn't any major accomplishments. That way, any editors here who still might be unreasonably skeptical won't single them out any more than other articles. A few such projects have taken  lists of 100 women  in whatever, ,or women under 30 in some profession, and uncritically made articles on all of them. ``  DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As DGG said, she is an assistant curator, akin to an assistant professor. Assistant professors who have not published more two books and are not widely cited do not qualify for articles. If she had authored numerous books, she may have notability as an author. Being an assistant curator at a middle tier (no offense meant) institution and doing normal assistant curator stuff does not qualify someone for an article. She is still early in her career, so there is plenty of time for her to rise through the ranks, author books, etc. Let’s see where she is in five to ten years and then maybe she’ll have passed the notability threshold. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep In addition to the support for WP:BASIC notability as an expert noted above, I also found two book reviews: Publishers Weekly, Choice Reviews (via ProQuest, by J. H. Noonan), "Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality. [...] Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers." Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good finds, that should do it. Will link this page somewhere in an essay I've been intending to write (started, WP:SHADOW). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interested participants in this discussion can find the review of Baum, Kelly. Delirious: art at the limits of reason, 1950-1980 by Noonan, F.H. via the Wikipedia Library: There is a singe sentence about Ryan: "Lastly, Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality." Vexations (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ryan is one of three authors of the 2017 book, which was published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A pretty good publishing credit. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, everybody who contributed a chapter to a book that has been reviewed is now notable. WP:PROF says that the criterion that the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks. But never mind, this is close enough, right? A sentence in a review here and there, and a chapter published. Hardly any citations, but who cares? We "rescued" an article. Well done. Congratulate yourselves. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPROF also states, Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark, and I think the available sources help support keeping the article - from my view, her recognition as an expert is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that also helps support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly: A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Vexations (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I think WP:NPROF is helpful to consider in this discussion, my !vote is based on WP:BIO, because she has a multi-faceted career that includes her work as a curator, art historian, writer, and critic. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, significant development since nomination, and Albright-Knox is indeed a nationally notable art museum at least. Just two days ago, they co-acquired a Kusama with the Smithsonian, and they're listed in a list of this year's top international museum and art gallery openings and renovations. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the acquisition of Infinity Mirrored Room—My Heart Is Dancing into the Universe, contributed to the notability of anyone, that would be Janne Sirén and Melissa Chiu, who arranged te purchase. I can find no sources that say TRR was in any way involved. Nor do I see anywhere that she was she involved in the renovation. Vexations (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the two reliable reviews of her books push this over the edge for me. There are also other reviews of her work, like her contribution to Efficient Causation: A history. WP:Interviews like the Cornelia Mag piece sometimes are indicators of notability. Reliable sources don't usually do features about the careers of non-notable people. FWIW, I don't consider sources like NYT and the Independent to be local news coverage so being cited as an expert there has a little more weight with me towards NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:27, 27 January 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.