Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer Glass

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. T. Canens (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Glass

[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)

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. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom summarizes it just right; this is synthesis and an attempt to coin a "genre" where none has been popularly recognized yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Elmidae, this is pure WP:SYNTH, trying to make up a new genre in defiance of the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure that it's synthesis. The Corning Museum organized an survey exhibition called New Glass: A Worldwide Survey , that their curator says includes "queer glass". here So at least one expert in the field actually uses the term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons listed above. Vexations's link shows, at best, a mention of the term, not the type of reliable secondary source about the subject needed to establish notability and base an article around. Even in that article's context it's not at all clear that "queer" refers to the artist, and not to the odd properties of the glass itself that every other adjective in that sentence is describing. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it is not a synthesis - in fact this article has "Queer Glass" in the headline in reference to a glass artist having a glass art show - it tells me that the term does exist as described in the article - so at least another expert in the field - a newspaper - uses the term. Also, not sure that I understand (with all due respect) MarginalCost's second point, as in the article itself it clearly defines it as glass artwork "produced by LGBTQ artists or about LGBTQ issues" - so it can be (a) about the artist being LGBTQ and working in fine art glass and/or (b) whose work addresses LGBTQ issues. Finally, this artist's BFA thesis (one of the artists mentioned in the article) is titled "Queer Glass" and it dates back to 2013, which tells me that the term has been in used/accepted by academia since at least six years ago... and by the International Guild of Glass Artists (IGGA).--Untipoflaco (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this article, linked to by Vexations as showing proof of use of the term. The sentence in question reads "The works on view range wildly in scale and content. Expect the unexpected. From a glowing, immersive installation by Rui Sasaki to circuit-bent neon, queer glass, and experiments in glass chemistry, there is something for everyone." This is the only time the word "queer" appears in the article. MarginalCost (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MarginalCost - I misunderstood what you meant - clear now, but still of the opinion that it is another RS for keeping the article - Easily a Keep in my opinion!--Untipoflaco (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bolding removed to avoid confusion, per WP:AFD. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notion of craft work that incorporates LGBTQ identity and symbolism has been around since the mid 2010's, with exhibits that focused on "queer narratives" - [1] Kelly Connole, Professor of ceramics at Carleton College in Minnesota and curator of Sexual Politics: Gender, Sexuality and Queerness that debuted at the Northern Clay Center in 2015, discussed craft work that incorporates LGBTQ identity and symbolism into their work and thus is part of nascent effort to create a queer vernacular within traditional craft practices. That interview is on the web on a site by John-Duane Kingsley about LGBTQ artist & makers who incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works using traditional craft processes.[2] Artschooled (talk

Interviews are generally considered primary sources, and not the type of reliable secondary source with editorial reivew needed to demonstrate notability. In any case, I think there probably could be a notable article written on LGTBQ art/Queer arts or something like that, but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage for one queer glass particularly just yet. If those sources are written or found, then we can revisit the discussion. MarginalCost (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As several have noted above, the notion that the article "tries to invent an art genre", while understandable if one doesn't have a finger on the pulse of the art world - or in this case the art glass scene - is incorrect. While I am clearly not objective in this case (as the author of the article), the reason that I decided to spend hours and hours crafting it, was that I kept hearing the term mentioned in art panels, seminars, openings, etc. around the epi-centers of the fine art glass world (the Pacific Northwest, the Greater Washington, DC area, and Corning). It first came across my attention via its hashtag use in Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, where there are 100s of references to it - usually with examples images of the work. And thus - with the same due respect that Untipoflaco showed, I'd like to submit that this article does not "invent" anything that "new" in the fine art glass scene, but perhaps something important and "newish" flying somewhat under the radar of the general art establishment, dealing with a historically under-represented and marginalized universe of artists, and just getting noticed --- as evidenced by the two museum exhibitions noted, the BFA thesis show, etc. I'd would strongly hope that a decision is made to keep. Peace out... BoriquaZurdo (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not notability, and notability is a higher standard than just verifiability. Even if the subject is being talked about, until it is significantly covered by multiple independent secondary sources any article on Wikipedia would require a level of interpretation or synthesis that is beyond our remit. MarginalCost (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, and so far in this discussion alone, there has been listed in one way or another: (1) A newspaper article with "Queer Glass" as a term in the headline, (b) A BFA thesis titled "Queer Glass", (c) a 2015 discussion by a college professor on the subject available on a, (d) craft website which "... incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works...", (e) Not one, but two museum exhibitions (both listed in original article) using the term (debate aside on meaning/interpretation, and (f) perhaps less as a "valid" but nonetheless existing data point: hundreds of hashtag usage of the term with images. As such, it seems to me (and again - I am not subjective, since it is my article) that we are being told that none of these sources are "suitable" and "independent"? I believe that they/some of them are and thus why I say: Keep.BoriquaZurdo (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bolding removed to avoid confusion, per WP:AFD. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on which one can add very little. The case made by nominator is succinct and correct, especially on a practice rightly cherished in Art but forbidden in Wikipedia: original work. Some arguments to Keep are based on variants of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:EFFORT. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet, original work ---> "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to "refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" and I must repeat myself as a biased opinion-giver: Sources do exist! So far in this discussion alone, there has been listed in one way or another: (1) A newspaper article with "Queer Glass" as a term in the headline, (b) A BFA thesis titled "Queer Glass", (c) a 2015 discussion by a college professor on the subject available on a, (d) craft website which "... incorporate queer narratives and symbols into their works...", (e) Not one, but two museum exhibitions (both listed in original article) using the term (debate aside on meaning/interpretation, and (f) perhaps less as a "valid" but nonetheless existing data point: hundreds of hashtag usage of the term with images. As such, it seems to me (and again - I am not subjective, since it is my article) that we are being told that none of these sources are "suitable" and "independent"? I believe that they/some of them are. The term is neither invented or created by this article, but gathered from the discussion in those sources. BoriquaZurdo (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, BoriquaZurdo. You argue that the term "Queer Glass" was "not invented by the article" but "gathered from the discussion in those sources." Yet, this is classic, typical synthesis: material gathered from reliable indeed sources that's put together to create something new, e.g. a term, an interpretation, an analysis, etc. Which is precisely what the nomination argues.

You claim that the term has already been out there, as a term, and you offer support for that by citing various sources. Well, none of those sources supports the claim that there already exists out there an art term such as "queer glass" with the meaning you, the article creator, give in the article. In the very lead section, you support your definition of the term by citing three sources: The first is a Washington Post article that is strictly about the term "LGBTQ" without any mention of "Queer Glass." The second is an exhibition listing where the words are included without any explanation as to their meaning or a hint that they are interpreted as you state in the article. (To quote: "The works on view range wildly in scale and content. Expect the unexpected. From a glowing, immersive installation by Rui Sasaki to circuit-bent neon, queer glass, and experiments in glass chemistry, there is something for everyone." "Bent neon" and "queer glass" do not necessarily have the meaning we want them to have.) And the third is another exhibition listing, this one from the website of the National Liberty Museum, which contains not one single mention of the words "Queer Glass." And these are the sources supposed to deliver the very meaning of the alleged term! Well, maybe some day, reliable sources will make a bona fide term out of these words. So far, they don't seem to have made one. (BTW, I think you meant "not objective.") Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings The Gnome - Thank you for the good feedback; I am taking straight direction from it (and the other great feedback here - both pro and con) and will re-write the meat of the article and re-focus the sources to those which specifically mention the term directly - of which there are several BTW. P.S. My "objective" vs "subjective" bit was my (obviously failed) attempt at Woody Allen humor from Love and Death.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and others on WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. With only vague mention of queer glass that without any context could mean odd, strange, or unusual, there is nothing here to even remotely suggest that there is a particular LGBT-focused form of fine art glass, technique, "genre", meaning, or movement that can be specifically identified as "queer glass". The group of individuals listed have in common that they identify with or they are associated with LGBT, GLBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA+, or maybe even LGBTQQIP2SAA and are glass artists. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick reportedly wore "cool, queer white glasses". It could be surmised from one reference that this is a type of "queer glass" rather than strange eye glasses. It could be debated if the two words together, in the sense being used, would be a portmanteau, word blending, or neologism but is an attempt to create something new using different sources that is synthesis. There is not enough evidence that the wording is even an acceptable and definitive "slang word" within any particular community. Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I first read the article, I was puzzled as to why it has been nominated for deletion. Then I came to this page and realized that the creator of the article has substantially changed the original article since its nomination for deletion. It is clear to me that BoriquaZurdo reviewed all the constructive criticism expressed on this page, as well as some of the recommendations and has delivered critical changes to the article. The art term/slang in question now has direct source to a glass school -- which according to its Wikipedia article is the "second largest" in the US. It also and more effectively uses and quotes the newspaper article noted in the comments above using the term "Queer Glass", and we can debate the Corning Museum's survey exhibition called "New Glass: A Worldwide Survey", that their curator clearly says includes "queer glass" as to the context of what the curator meant - although it is clear what she meant here, where the use of the descriptor "queer artist in glass past and present" indicates to me that the curator referred to "queer glass" in the exhibition not as odd or unusual glass, as some have tried to deduce in this discussion, but about the creators of the glass being LGBTQ and thus "queer glass." Based on the recent changes to the article, I vote to Keep.--Soydeaguadilla (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2019 (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.