Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

WP:DSPAINTING

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Visual arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Visual arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Visual arts. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

For Visual arts listings only:

A simple tag to put on AfD discussions as an alternative to the coding given above under "tag an AFD" is:

It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

Visual arts

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. No support for deletion beyond nominator. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Noever

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

Upon search, I can't find any reliable, independent sources about the subject. Not to mention, none of the current sources in the article are reliable, which means that we can't presume that the subject is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Businesspeople, and Austria. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Museums and libraries. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peter Noever is an internationally known curator, author, museum professional and designer. What is problematic about the article is the COI editing and large amounts of unsourced content, all of which can be cleaned up. AfD is not clean up. A quick WP:BEFORE search on the WP Library (access required) finds these reviews of his books: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and many others. Reviews of his work as curator: [6], [7], [8], additionally there are these interviews (primary sources, but relevant): [9], [10]. Clearly a notable person who meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Question for nominator @WormEater13: since when has Domus (magazine) a notable art, architecture and design magazine that has been around since 1928 become an "unreliable" source? Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean-up is in order but subject is definitely notable per Netherzone. I also added WP:SIGCOV from LA Times to the article. Zzz plant (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone and Zzz plant. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went to the article and attempted to clean it up. I removed tons of unsourced CV items and claims. The exhaustive list of "Publications" is so overwhelming as to be un-encyclopedic in value. The remaining citations are pretty thin. I strongly suspect that the reference to exact birth date was added in the original article by COI editor "Knowledge space". That date was picked up by https://cs.isabart.org/person/15892. I think the remaining unsourced material needs to be sourced or removed. I'll wait a few days to see if the cruft goes, if not I will remove it. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the publications to talk page. Agreed it needs a lot of trimming and clean up. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2025 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monument of Jiangsu Road

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

Currently, has zero in-depth sourcing. Could be redirected to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa), another poorly sourced stub by this same editor, which contains almost all the same information. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages, I think it makes sense to cover both Monument of Jiangsu Road and Jiangsu Road (Lhasa) since the two topics are very closely linked. The latter article notes:
  After the completion of the road was renamed "Jiangsu Road", and set up a Monument of Jiangsu Road to commemorate the contribution of Jiangsu Province's reconstruction assistance.
  I don't see sufficient independent notability and content to support two separate articles. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa). Nothing to merge. Yue🌙 08:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above reasons , this move seems sensible. given both topics are indeed strongly related.Villkomoses (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotica (software)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Oxman

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

I do not think this artist meets WP:ARTIST yet, lacking secondary source coverage or WP:GNG Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist who is at the beginning of her career. I'm holding off on !voting for now to do a deeper search, but all I'm finding is non-independent mentions of her from connected sources, and also finding social media posts and user submitted content. I am finding quite a few hits about her sister Neri due to a high-profile plagiarism case, but that is no reflection on this artist. Leaning towards delete unless enough independent reliable sources can be found to meet WP:NARTIST. I just ran it thru Earwigs and it's 90% copyright violation, WP:COPYVIO which I will remove from the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New York. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was previously speedy deleted on 11 July 2023 under the G8 and A7 criteria. No improvement since it was crafted by User:Kerenoxman in 2023, which I'm assuming might have an been autobiography.[11] The artist does not meet WP criteria for inclusion as a notable person per WP:NARTIST nor GNG. I'm not finding anything substantial in a BEFORE, and the current sourcing consists of the blog Freshpaint which looks to be user-submitted photos with zero editorial content; her own website; a user-submitted bio for a residency (text taken directly from her own website); and a link to a name check for working as a team assistant for one of her sister Neri Oxman's projects at the Pompedou Center. A before search reveals her social media posts and PR, but nothing of substance. No notable shows, no works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, or any of the kind of coverage we would expect for a notable artist. Maybe in a few years but it's definitely WP:TOOSOON at this time. And possible PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. Best known as being the sister of Neri Oxman WP:NOTINHERIT. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2025 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport#Terminals and facilities. As an ATD, closing this as a redirect, consensus that notability for a stand alone article is not satisfied, but it is unclear what should be merged given the limited material. As the article history will remain, editors can determine what to bring across. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Ronald Reagan (Arlington, Virginia)

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

Unable to find any coverage on the statue besides its unveiling in 2011: WP:NOTNEWS. मल्ल (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, and Virginia. मल्ल (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, already been saved by the original author since your nomination. One of the many good sources added is from the Smithsonian, and now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post oped is about the person and only mentions the statue in the title. The other added sources are also just about the unveiling, still doesn’t pass WP:SUSTAINED. मल्ल (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport where the statue is located. This article is a three sentence stub. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an article quality assessment, not a source assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in RS, meets GNG, and needs expansion. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is an opinion of the notability of the work of art and its significant coverage, not an idealistic view of the man. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By my count, we have one source that counts for notability. I've done research and I can't find any others.

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Smithsonian		Database entry	✘ No
14 News		Only 2 sentences are about the statue. The rest are about the man.	✘ No
NBC News			✔ Yes
Politico		Only 3 sentences are about the statue, the rest are about the man. And one of those sentences are about the people who were at the unveiling, not really about the statue itself, either.	✘ No
Washington Post	This is an opinion-piece about a writer's opinion of the man.	The vast majority is the writer's feelings towards the man, not the statue.	✘ No
Raegan Library		Database Entry	✘ No
Washington Times		Just a photo with one sentence about the statue.	✘ No
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}}.

-- Mike 🗩 16:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Are we really creating articles for statues? Obi2canibe (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment offers no reason for deletion, and there are many Wikipedia entries about statues... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make some wise guy comment to Obi2canibe but then realized that you are a longtime and experienced editor. Better late than never I guess, unless your comment was satire. In any case, maybe think about or reconsider your delete vote? Thanks. As for the sourcing concern above, the Smithsonian is an adequate GNG source for establishing notability (besides, this statue is at the entrance of one of the most notable airports in the U.S., and its notability is both sustained and recognized daily by those who view it). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Smithsonian is the absolute worst source of these, just data in an inventory, not analysis or substantial coverage. A statue does not inherit notability from its location – if its location at a notable airport is so significant, it should be covered at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which does not even mention this. The airport (like others) has a lot of art seen by thousands every day that don't need standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I’m in agreement with Mike. While, I’m open to check out new sources, his source assessment is apt. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source assessment table is correct and shows lack of significant coverage. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport#Terminals and facilities or #21st century per Obi2canibe, especially when the pages are created as a single sentence, and the second and third sentences (does not qualify for HEY lol) only added after nominated for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, source table is correct/lack of WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per Reywas92. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2025 (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.

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. I see broad support for redirecting the page. But without consensus against keeping it as a standalone article, a redirect cannot be picked as an alternative to retention. Owen× ☎ 15:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to agree with the nominator that the collection is the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, which Uncle G did a nice job touching up. The offical source is not even substantive. An artwork does not inherit notability from its location or the collection it's in, that's no basis for single-sentence, single-source pages. If the collection is prominent, you are welcome to expand Washington State Capitol#Art and monuments as well. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shared on the article's Talk page and now included as bare citations in the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok ... But no response to the fact that the articles do contain facts not found in Crooks or the official blurb? Jahaza (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage seems to have happened because of the prominent location of the work, but the coverage exists. Jahaza (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington. There doesn't seem to be any specific notability guidelines for pieces of art but looking at the guidelines for music and books and making my own suggests that this sculpture doesn't meet what I would expect is needed, following from what Reywas92 said. this is the only source of the newspapers that actually discusses the sculpture in depth. The Washington State blurb is what I would consider primary. I do not recommend redirecting to List of works by Lee Kelly which I think is the other possible target because many of his works are titled Untitled, it would just be confusing. Moritoriko (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington: per Reywas92. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This easily passes general notability guideline. The article has four sources, all of which are both reliable and in-depth coverage, the three newspaper articles are undoubtedly independent, whether the Washington State government website is independent is a matter of opinion. The sources show sustained coverage being from three different dates: 1969 (2), 1973 (1), present day (1).-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (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.

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. There is a clear consensus against deletion, with many editors agreeing that a split would be a good option. That can definitely happen, and I will tag the article suggesting as such. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics in Asia

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

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are about the topic (as a whole, not about some subtopic)? Fram (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [12]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaynentu, do you have sources that you can present here that discuss the topic of Mosaics in Asia as a whole? That would be really helpful. Netherzone (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks well sourced. The topic is broad. Can be improved either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split into region-specific articles: West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even narrower: Persian mosaics is still a redlink! However, I recognize that this is unlikely to gain consensus at the tail end of an AfD, so in the meantime I guess we can draftify it or keep it. I don't think the topic is notable, which makes the article basically SYNTH, but the content is not bad and should be kept somewhere while it's being split. Jaynentu, thank you for writing this – I encourage you to write the narrower region-specific mosaic articles as well! Toadspike [Talk] 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Splitting into separate articles (if this is a possible result in an AfD). I realised I didn't !vote above, but my comment that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles, is consistent with Toadspike's suggestion. I note also that the nom, Fram, commented above that "Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best." It seems that all participating editors so far agree that there is content worth keeping, and we are fairly evenly split between keeping as is, and splitting into separate articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2025 (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.

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review