Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tseng Kwong Chi


 * 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. WP:SNOW and probably all 3 WP:SK criteria. (non-admin closure) 6 an 6 sh 6 03:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Tseng Kwong Chi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP Clearly Kwong Chi is notable, there is significant coverage in reliable sources, his work is in the public collections of Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Theroadislong (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great; got refs? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - passes WP:ARTIST #4, probably #1 and possibly #3 to say nothing of WP:GNG which I haven't considered in detail given how easily he passes our special inclusion criteria. But if you want to go there we have significant coverage from the Smithsonian (National Portrait Gallery) here and from Theatre Journal (Johns Hopkins) here and from the Encycolpedia of Asian American Artists. Mr SPA, you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting this deleted. Stalwart 111  23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ARTIST says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:ARTIST doesn't say that at all, WP:GNG does. He passes both. Easily. For the reference of others, my "speedy keep" recommendation was based on section 2e of WP:SK: "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Stalwart 111  00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; I see no significant coverage. I am unimpressed with the references to date;
 * 4 references are in the article as of today ;
 * 1. "^ Kelley Kara. "Encyclopedia of Asian American Artists". Hallmark. p. 229." - I am unable to verify "Encyclopedia of Asian American Artists" but I suspect it is a passing reference ("Significant coverage is more than a passing mention" - WP:GNG) - I suspect this is a very brief mention;
 * 2. "Photos by Tseng Kwong Chi with Keith Haring at Paul Kasmin Gallery" - this link makes no mention at all of the subject, other than "Photos by Tseng Kwong Chi" - it is absolutely a 'passing mention' and has no information to establish GNG
 * 3. " artasiamerica digital archive" shows a website that makes no mention of the subject.
 * 4. "http://artasiamerica.org/artist/detail/69" seems promotional, and not a reliable source
 * I see no significant coverage to date, and thus no claim to meet standards of notability. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "per nom"? You are the nom. You don't get to vote twice and it's assumed you support deletion because you nominated the article for deletion. Notability is based on the sources available, not the sources currently listed in the article. Any reason any of the sources I provided above shouldn't be considered? Did you actually conduct a basic search per WP:BEFORE? Stalwart 111  00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick look on GBooks shows plenty of coverage Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator didn't really read the article, or didn't do the appropriate due diligence before bringing this to AFD. The subject clearly meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you support that with any actual information, instead of just spouting random accusations?
 * If you have refs, great - please add them, thanks. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. In addition to mentioned sources, we also have The New York Times: + many other references establishing that this is an artist of lasting reputation and influence.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Admin Close and/or Snow Keep. The nominator User:Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. It never had a chance on GNG grounds anyway. Note to the nominator: Renominate with your other account, which you bragged has 100k+ edits and 3 FA's to its name. Why are you hiding behind a SPA, no one assumes Good Faith in light of your recent burst of bad behavior. --  Green  C  02:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2014 (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.