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. Proper procedure was obviously not followed here, but there is consensus the article subject is notable enough for an article. I will handle moving the page to the correct location shortly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Chongbin (Artist)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist whose artistic notability has not been shown. This article was declined twice in AFC, and then moved to article space, and moved back to draft space by User:Naraht, and then moved to article space again, so that this is a contested draftification. The title of this article appears to be an unnecessary disambiguation, since there is no Zheng Chongbin, but further review shows that Zheng Chongbin is a protected title due to repeated recreation, so that the addition of the disambiguator is gaming of titles. The article has been reference-bombed, so an assessment of the sources has not been done. If the originator thinks that this is a better and more neutral biography than the deleted pages, the proper procedure should be to discuss with the protecting administrator, User:Jimfbleak, or request unprotection at RFPP, and if that is not successful, request Deletion Review, rather than adding a disambiguator to game the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, China, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep This is why the AFC process exists and this is the result when someone decides they don't like the result. There may *still* be room for an article on this person (Marina Bay Sands & Chinese Culture Center with exhibits), I wouldn't *reject* it in AFC, but if the author is unwilling to move to mainspace and then do it again, this is really the only option.Naraht (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still think the system is being bent by this, but at this point we are gauging the article, not the authors actions.Naraht (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I performed some cleanup and corrected the sentence case on the disambiguation Zheng Chongbin (Artist) → Zheng Chongbin (artist) before realizing there was a WP:GAMENAME being played. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comments. I tried getting in touch with the editor who rejected one of the latest drafts about two months ago on the notability issue grounds asking to reconsider the decision and explaining why I believe the notability criterion is met. I still haven't heard back, so I did some further edits and published the article. It was not possible to move it into the published space under the original title, so I changed the title, provided that it would still be linked to the original article in order to allow for a quicker review (it has already been almost a year since this article was first created). When the article was removed from the published space, once again the notability issue was raised, which I wanted the editor to reconsider, so I moved it back to the published space and explained to the editor why I believe the notability is met (please note (1) the mention of the artworks in the academic sources such as the Yishu journal, (2) the presence of the works in the reputable museums like The Met, and also (3) the awards, such as the Asia Game Changer West Awards). Over the past year each time the article was rejected and the comments were left, I worked on each of the editing suggestions - e.g. the language has been made as factual as possible; about the presence of many references - this was done in response to the comment on the very first draft of the article asking to support each mentioned piece of information with a reference, so this is what I did. After so many editing rounds, I reached the stage that making further edits is very difficult - I believe the article is suitable for Wikipedia as it is now. However, if you have any further suggestions on what needs to be added or underlined in the article to make it more suitable for Wikipedia, please let me know. If you think there are too many references, I can delete some information which will remove some references. If you think it is better to continue working on the article under the original title rather than via the linked article, I am happy to do this as well. Please just let me know what exactly I need to do to get this article published. Thank you for your time and kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artbranch (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artbranch - You ask what you need to do to get this article published. At this point, my question for you is what your affiliation or connection is with the artist. All of your edits have been about this person or in support of your efforts to publish an article on this person. What is your affiliation with Zheng Chongbin? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also comment that you have made it much less likely that an article will be published about this person. When an editor tries to game the system, experienced editors can usually infer that they are trying to do something that is not consistent with improving the encyclopedia. When you discovered that you could not publish the article with the intended title, Zheng Chongbin, you should have asked what the problem was, rather than changing the title. But you probably knew why the title was locked. It would have better to ask questions earlier, maybe at the Teahouse, rather than pushing ahead. At this point, it is probably unlikely that you will be able to publish the article. But you can start by stating what your connection to the subject is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artbranch As mentioned above, the relevant determining factor in Notability for Artists and other artistic professionals is at WP:NARTIST. Copying from there:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't believe that anywhere in the article is a claim of any of the first three, and I don't really see anything that fulfills the characteristic of number 4, though that is a discussion that may make sense to conduct in draftspace.Naraht (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in both newspapers and academic journals. In addition to that this article passes part 4d of WP:NARTIST by having their work in the permanent collection of the British Museum, NY Metropolitan Museum, Marina Bay Sands Singapore, Brooklyn Museum, and The Art Institute of Chicago. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
San Francisco Chronicle	Newpaper is not tied to subject	Reporting appears to be reliable as it's talking about a group exposition.	The article focuses on Zheng Chongbin and his life/work	✔ Yes
University of Edinburgh	There does not appear to be a connection between the author and the artist	Although not peer reviewed it was reviewed by a committee	The entire dissertation is about this persons work	✔ Yes
San Francisco: Asian Art Museum	Website is talking about the installation of a site specific work of art at the Asian Art Museum	The material does not appear to be biased and is factual	The coverage is only about the artist and the site specific art work they created	✘ No
Ink Studio	Art critic is not connected to the artist	Art critic has written about multiple artists	Entire topic is over the artist and their work	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor has only 37 edits so it is highly unlikely that they would know what to do if they found they couldn't create an article at the desired oage title. Like any other AFD, can the focus here be on whether the article subject is notable as established by the sources included in the article? There is time to instruct the editor on what SHOULD have happened. I understand that things didn't go as Wikipedia policies states they should go but I don't want the editor's conduct to overshadow evaluation of the article. The main article page title was protected in 2017, a lot can happen over that stretch of time since then in whether there is SIGCOV of an artist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am asking whether the editor has any connection with the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, lets assume good faith and focus on the article at hand. If you think the COI is that important then take it up over at WP:COIN or their talk page. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like the editor to identify the three or not more than five references that provide reliable significant coverage of the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the collections brought forth by Dr vulpes, that establish notability per NARTIST criteria #4: British Museum, NY Metropolitan Museum, Brooklyn Museum, and The Art Institute of Chicago are solid notable collections. The DesignBoom citation I'm not so sure about. But nevertheless they do meet the SNG for Artists which is stricter than GNG. Netherzone (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Robert McClenon, that the editor disclose whether they have a COI for the sake of transparency. If the editor does, it's really better to disclose than not. There are some editors on WP who may be willing to mentor or instruct the editor on best practices in the future. Netherzone (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The assessment by Dr vulpes is correct. Other than the sources already mentioned here or in the article, my searches are showing other possible sources, like there is a good paragraph in The Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition catalogue "Ink Art: Past as Present in Contemporary China". Elspea756 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all very much for your helpful comments and swift feedback. I can confirm that I am an independent researcher and do not represent the artist. I am new to writing on Wikipedia and this was the first and only time I tried to write an article here - that’s why, I focused this past year in my spare time on polishing this article and taking on board all the feedback that I have been receiving while also trying to self-learn about the writing guidelines on Wikipedia.

As mentioned, I asked the editor who rejected the article most recently to kindly reconsider the decision and explained why I believe the article meets the Wikipedia criteria. Since I haven’t heard back in two months (and it’s already been about a year that I have been working on this article), I found out that there was an option to have the article moved to the Wikipedia space for a swifter review. As someone who is new to writing on Wikipedia, I wasn’t aware of the term ‘game the system’ - when I changed the title, it said that the article would still be linked to the original one so that a search for the original title would be redirected to the updated title of the article. The intention here was to get the swifter review.

I am willing to take feedback on board, that is why it is important for me to understand what exactly needs to be improved about the article as I believe that the general guidelines are already addressed in the article. For example, in regards to the point about ‘such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’, this criterion is met through a series of reputable references drawn from the impartial academic scholarship - the subject’s artworks have been the focus of articles such as (1) Claypool, Lisa (2019). "Liquid Space: A Conversation with Zheng Chongbin". Yishu. 18: 100–107. Yishu was established in 2002 and is a reputable peer-reviewed authoritative academic source that is in the university libraries worldwide (e.g. SOAS in London). Another example would be (2) Tedford, Matthew Harrison, ed. (2011). Zheng Chongbin: White Ink. San Francisco & Santa Clara: Chinese Culture Foundation of San Francisco & Silicon Valley Asian Art Centre. This scholarly source also meets an additional criterion of notability, namely ‘such work must have been the primary subject of […] an independent and notable work (for example, a book […]’. One more example, among others, would be (3) Chen, Abby; Kovskaya, Maya (2021). Zheng Chongbin: I Look for the Sky. San Francisco: Asian Art Museum. These references exemplify the reliable significant coverage of the subject.

In regards to the criteria ‘The person's work (or works) has […] been a substantial part of a significant exhibition’, this is addressed in the section ‘Exhibitions’. The list there aims to show that the artist’s works have been the focus of a number of solo and group exhibitions at leading non-profit museums worldwide. A recent example would be I Look for the Sky at the Asia Museum of San Francisco (solo exhibition). Another example is Ink Worlds: Contemporary Chinese Painting from the Collection of Akiko Yamazaki and Jerry Yang (2018, Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University). The artist also created an important permanent art installation at the Ryosoku-in Temple, Kennin-ji, Kyoto. This also meets another criterion, i.e. ‘The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument’, in this case, outside more conventional museum and gallery spaces, and in the wider realm of a significant historic Zen Buddhist temple in Kyoto. Additionally, the artist’s illustrated work Wall of Skies was selected by the artist-curators Raqs Media Collective to be part of Why Not Ask Again - the 2016 Eleventh Shanghai Biennale.

Speaking about the criterion ‘been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums’, the artist’s works are in the museum collections worldwide - The Met in New York, LACMA in Los Angeles, British Museum in London, M+ in Hong Kong etc. The artist’s list of awards, which are unpacked as part a separate additional section is also another indicator of the notability - e.g. the recent Asia Game Changer West Award speaks to the fact that the subject ‘won significant critical attention’ and speaks to the critical recognition of his works.

Initially, I was more explicit about the notability and used adjectives like ‘notable’, ‘significant’, ‘worldwide’, but I kept on receiving the feedback that the article needed to be more neutral.

Once again, thank you everyone for your comments and kind feedback. I am happy to take on board any further feedback that would help improve the article on which I have been working for the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artbranch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. vulpes, meets WP:GNG. Plenty of sources. Speedy Keep? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills WP:ARTIST per the sources provided by Dr. vulpes and Artbranch and because Chongbin's work is included in the permanent collections of multiple notable art museums. Mooonswimmer 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, Zheng Chongbin should be unprotected and this article moved to this title Jumpytoo Talk 21:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, keeping (if done) should be to without a dab term.Naraht (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.