Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cakelot1 (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 28 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singing candle.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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:
{{subst:LVD}}
It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

See also:


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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singing candle

Singing candle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking through the history of this article, it seems to have been an art project by the Belgian Bains::connective (an archive of their website). Their website seems to be the only source that has ever been in the article, and the article's original illustration was sourced to that site too. As you can see from that image (and old versions of the article and site), the art project also seemingly made some concerningly fringe connection with psychology/telepathy. More to the point my WP:BEFORE failed to find any coverage in WP:RSs covering this either as a feedback demonstration or as an art project, and thus I can't see this meeting WP:GNG. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Młynarczyk

Tomasz Młynarczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance but potentially notable. Note tag been on the article for 1+ years. I think it probably fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV but don't hold me to it. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has an interesting history to be aware of. It was created by a now globally locked account, part of the "Put Radzyn on the map" campaign to promote the town of Radzyn. So I think the sources should be examined very carefully, to analyze which ones are public relations, local promotion, or advertorial content like native advertising that may look like an actual article in a publication but it actually PROMO. Holding off on !voting for now. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - After going through all the sources in the article, and conducting an online BEFORE search, here's what I found: quite a few hits for this photographer, but they are press releases, or event announcements, and photo credits in various publications. A lot is taken directly from Wikipedia. It seems he is a much loved and respected local photographer, who has photographed a broad range of subjects. However most of the sources in the article are primary sources. Some of the citations that look like book reviews are actually synopses written by the photographer himself, and published by the Zwiazek Polskich Artystów Fotografików - Association of Polish Art Photographers, of which he is a member, so not independent. What I did find that contribute to notability are: He designed a stamp for Poland: [1]; review of one of his shows in a newspaper (which I think is local Wyborcza.pl LUBLIN): [2]; and this article, but it is unclear exactly what the publication is but appears it may be an academic journal, info: Młynarczyk, Tomasz. 2011. "Exhibition "Archive - Form And Light and Shadow". Archives – Kancelarie – Collections, No. 2(4)/ (December):195-219. https://doi.org/10.12775/AKZ.2011.007. [3] and another way to access the article: [4]. If kept, the article needs clean up. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Wyborcza is a major Polish newspaper, so it covering his exhibition is a suggestion of GNG, even if, yes, its one of their local (regional) editions. The "academic" article linked appears to be from the subject himself. I am not seeing much else outside was was found above; I think all things considered he is not notable enough for Wikipedia (only the GW article seems to meet slightly stretched GNG/SIGCOV/independent requirements). PS. I nominated it on pl wiki for deletion (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2025:04:30:Tomasz Młynarczyk). It tends to be more inclusionist. Perhaps someone will find new sources or arguments there, I'll update my comment here if there's anything there that I feel is worth mentioning here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 30 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Professional Design Firms

Association of Professional Design Firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 4 May 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art Fight

Art Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Besides the The Verge source referenced, I couldn't find any other independent coverage. ~ A412 talk! 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that it fails WP:GNG. Is there no other subject-specific notability test that this might fall under? It's an event with 400k participants, which seems logically notable to me, but I'm not as well-versed in Wikipedia's notability guidelines as you folk are. Aspharon (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above, fails WP:GNG. Also I feel like the title can be misleading as when I first saw the title, I thought it was a general title about a fighting related to art instead of a game.
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 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Weber (artist)

Nick Weber (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Artsy
 No Primary source database No User submitted content by galleries/auction houses with paid subscriptions No Non-independent user submitted data ✘ No
Harpers Gallery
 No Artist's gallery showing their work (PR) Press release in the form of a personal letter from the galleries to the artist No PR, not a review ✘ No
27East
 No Press release in local paper submitted by the artist's gallery Press release No PR, not a review ✘ No
Dan's Papers
 ~ large portion of the text is the artist talking about himself/his work Profile in local paper ~ Hybrid profile/interview/PR for show ? Unknown
Glenn Horowitz Bookseller
 No Press release from a bookseller PR No PR ✘ No
Women's Wear Daily "Fashion Scoops"
 Yes Women's wear trade journal Yes Trade journal for fashion, lifestyle and women's wear Fashion scoop/society lifestyle (not a serious art magazine; text about Weber is partly occluded by a paywall.) ? Unknown
Gothamist
 Yes Local news blog ~ Widely distributed blog Article is about a local controversy regarding his work, does not seem to be an art review ? Unknown
Grenning Gallery
 No Art gallery showing his work Artist bio - user submitted content for selling artwork No Gallery listing ✘ No
Ochi Gallery
 Yes Filler. Art gallery press release for another artist Yes The gallery exist and but this is a press release for a different artist; it is only a name check mention of Weber No This is a press release for another artist, who simply mentions at the bottom that they had shown their work at Nick Weber's studio ✘ No
Boo Hooray Summer Rental
 No Press release for a show at Boo-Hooray Summer Rental, a "gallery that can be rented for shows in the summer" PR No Press release, connected source ✘ No
KD Hamptons Art Scene
 No PR Puff piece local coverage Press announcement in local "luxury lifestyle diary" PR, press announcement in local lifestyle blog ✘ No
Chelsea Walls
 No Interview in the gallery's blog Interview between artist and gallery No No editorial content, just a few questions ✘ No
Dan's Papers
 ~ Routine local coverage in local paper, interview with the artist's gallery Yes Local coverage in local paper PR for the gallery showing Weber's work ? Unknown
Printed Matter
 No Book seller listing Printed Matter is a bookstore selling his book No Book seller listing ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete The source analysis table, a nice touch, is very compelling and I couldn't find anything else of worth. Couldn't find a single museum that contains a collection. References are profiles. Nothing really. scope_creepTalk 16:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No Getty ULAN listing [5] and the source review table pretty much explains the rest. Lack of sourcing or critical review. Oaktree b (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've spent quite a bit of BEFORE time searching of the kind of coverage needed for inclusion, and haven't been able to to find what's needed to substantiate this artists's notability per WP's criteria. The sources consist of user-submitted data, press releases, connected sources (such as galleries that show his work), hyper-local or PR trivial coverage, social media posts and primary sourcing. Does not meet GNG nor NARTIST at this time. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:33, 3 May 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. No deletion rationale provided here or support for a deletion of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margarida Fleming

AfDs for this article:
Margarida Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neutral. As the original author of the article I do not accept suggestions that the article is inaccurate. To the best of my knowledge the complainant has not provided any examples of inaccuracies. Further, there are a large number of citations given. The fact that these sources are freely available rather challenges the complainant's request for privacy. I probably prepared the article after seeing a list of the "Top Ten Most Inspiring Portuguese Women",[1] which to me does not suggest a lack of notability, although I would agree that the subject, despite the quality of her work, is not in the first rank of Portuguese artists and her inclusion on Wikipedia cannot be considered essential. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Top 10 Most Inspiring Portuguese Women". Discover Walks. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  • Question: Of the fourteen sources currently in the article, which one(s) are not blogs, user-submitted content, sales sites or primary sources? In other words, which are secondary reliable sources that are fully independent from the person? Netherzone (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2: OK, I'm confused. The nominator, Roundtheworld, who started this AfD says they are the original author, but are neutral about deletion. However the article history says that the editor, Umdiadepois, nominated the article for deletion according to their user contributions,[6] and they claim to be the the subject of the article, although there is no proof of that. Roundtheworld could you, when you find a moment, please explain what's going on, I'm confused. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not start the AFD. I responded to a notification that the page had been started. Umdiadepois had previously made lots of large deletions, which were reverted by others. I am reasonably satisfied that she is the subject of the article. Her first revert stated "Hello, I am the subject of this article. Some of the information is outdated and does not accurately reflect my current trajectory. I would like the article to be simplified, as I prefer to keep my personal and professional information on my official website. I kindly request the removal of excessive details and a more neutral, concise version of the article. Thank you for your time and consideration." Roundtheworld (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, now I understand. Umdiadepois may well be the subject, however, because this is a BLP, I think there is a procedure that has to occur to prove that they are who they say they are. If I'm not mistaken, they need to file an email ticket with WP:VRT that gets reviewed by a team member and assigned a number. I'm pinging @Star Mississippi for her guidance. (BTW, I have no opinion on Fleming's notability at this time.) Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Netherzone for the ping. NZ, @Roundtheworld while that's the best route if Fleming wants to edit the article or under their name, it's not mandatory for us to consider this deletion discussion. They're welcome to open the discussion or weigh in and if they have specific privacy concerns about material, they should reach out to VRT/OTRS. No comment on notability as I haven't had a chance to dive in and it's late here @Justlettersandnumbers @Barkeep49 is there anything we're missing here? Star Mississippi 03:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think participants in this discussion, including any closer(s), are welcome to consider how to weight the request from an unverified account for purposes of Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fleming appears to be notable enough based on coverage in Portuguese arts media. No nomination rationale is given here in this discussion page, but when Umdiadepois edited the page to place the AFD nomination, the edit summary was Nominating article for deletion – subject requests removal due to privacy, inaccuracy, and lack of notability. Umdiadepois has, in a prior edit summary, claimed to be Margarida Fleming. However, I don't believe Wikipedia is in the practice of removing articles simply based on the subject's request. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the article that is derogatory or negative in any way, and even if there were, we could edit the article to correct that without deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:03, 27 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)

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]
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

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts&oldid=1287798968"