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. WP:SNOW keep. This probably also falls under speedy keep criteria #3, considering the article cited two non-image sources at the time of nomination [1]; it now cites several more. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation State Portraits of Charles III and Camilla

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

Article entirely based off of two non-free images. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you clarify whether your objection is to the article or to the images? Deletion of images is a different process. At this point the paintings are getting significant independent coverage in multiple sources and prima facie that's enough for WP:GNG. Oblivy (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Royalty and nobility. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG per sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate sources - the status of the images is not the same as the notability of the article. Ingratis (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not any different from Coronation portraits of George III and Charlotte or the Official White House portraits of Hillary and Bill Clinton. The images are non-free but we are free to have an article on them. Keivan.f^Talk 04:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, there's a lot of media coverage of these portraits, and similar articles about previous Coronation portraits. Blackballnz (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough sources to meet WP:GNG. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's already significant coverage, and almost certainly will be more in early June, when the media will splurge on more coverage of "run to the National Gallery before they move the paintings!" Bearian (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find sufficient media coverage on this topic. the given references are also giving good light on this portrait. Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have own notability. Keivan.f has a point. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 13 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. ✗plicit 23:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Malone Gallery

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

This short-lived former gallery does not meet notability criteria for WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG. The sources consist of a short PR blurb; a bio of the owner on Widewalls which is user-submitted content; a press release from PRweb about an artist's show not the gallery itself; a paid advertisement in the LA Times; a PR blurb in a local paper; a few reviews of artist's show in HuffPo & InstallationMag & AmadeusMag that just name-checks the gallery; and the gallery's own website announcing the closure. An online BEFORE search only finds social media. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Photography, Business, and California. Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would humbly suggest that while short-lived, the gallery in question was indeed notable in that it introduced many artists who have gained more mainstream success. It was the first place in Los Angeles to give any street artists a solo exhibition. Before Stone Malone Gallery, street artists had only exhibited in groups. It was an underground scene, which would explain the lack of mainstream coverage, but it was a scene that attracted quite a bit of notoriety and a high-profile celebrity clientele...which -- when documented at all -- is typically only documented in social media. KCAL News called it one of the "Top Art Galleries In Hollywood" and included it in a list of the "10 Best Art Galleries In West Hollywood" (which was deleted as "duplicate citation" but there were actually two separate articles). Elvissinatra (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Netherzone (talk · contribs) made a good WP:BEFORE work. I also found one source on CBSnews [2] and a few blogs covering the subject. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve - I made some substantial additions to this article and it seems like there's something to the "street art" thing but it's tough to track down more good citations for it but I believe they're out there. Jessamyn (my talk page) 00:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jessamyn, thanks for your improvements, I saw them before nominating the article. They are not reliable sources, tho. The problem with the citations that you added is that one is a Press Release (a primary source) from PR web; the other is a small paid advertisement in the LA Times, it's not a review or an article it's an ad; and the Widewalls piece is being flagged (in red) as a blog containing user-submitted content. It is WP:ADMASQ - Native advertising, advertising mascarading as editorial content. Here's what Whitewalls mission statement is: Our goal? To make buying art accessible to all. It calls itself "a marketplace" that sells Works of art for all budgets and Secure shopping and free returns within 14 days - it's not a serious art magazine like Art in America or Artforum or Frieze, it's a web-based art sales service. All three of these are very poor quality sources that do not count towards WP:GNG, and more importantly, do not count towards WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NORG not met. SIGCOV is not established. Poor sourcing like its own website, WP:HUFFPOCON and some random websites. Graywalls (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have some coverage, but then again so do many other galleries. Most sources look like announcing it was opening or promo type of stuff. Don't see it as notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:04, 13 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 merge‎ to Florentijn Hofman. asilvering (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bospoldervos

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

I don't think this public sculpture of a shopping fox meets notability criteria for works of art. Fails WP:GNG. The sourcing is weak, a blog and what appears to be a human interest story. A BEFORE search finds social media postings but not anything of substance. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Netherlands. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Florentijn Hofman. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.There seems to be quite a few news stories from when it was built/completed in 2020[3][4][5][6][7] and it's now getting sustained coverage such as this 2024 book[8]. The alternative to deletion would be a merge to Florentijn Hofman. Jahaza (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those, Jahaza. The book, 1000 Things to Do in the Netherlands, is not a serious art historical analysis, it's like a tourist guide, so I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Good work on finding the local news articles about the progress, but again, not sure about these, as it's local coverage reporting on a local spectacle. You came up with an excellent merge target as an alternative to deletion, makes a lot of sense. Netherzone (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge urgently into Florentijn Hofman. Totally unclear why this was spun out. gidonb (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Florentijn Hofman. It belongs better as part of the Gallery section of Hofman, than a stand alone article. Subject is not notable enough. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:10, 14 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Bonichi

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

The artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, as a teacher they do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The sources consist of blogs (Weird Fiction, and Trend Hunter), press releases or primary sources with a simple name check. None of these are reliable sources that provide significant coverage. An online BEFORE did not find anything of value, just social media posts and eBay. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Visual arts, Photography, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any indication of notability, the claim that her work is in multiple permanent exhibitions is not supported by the source attached. If it were, this would change the picture. --hroest 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's one good source, about a 2006 exhibition, but it's a primary source, and does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 7 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. JBW (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Weaving Art

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, however, in view of the creating editor appearing unwilling to take the advice of reviewers, I feel deletion to be the correct route. As part of my rationale I quote the latest reviewer, Theroadislong: "still entirely inappropriate tone and unclear what the sources are supporting as they are not inline...see WP:REFB". I see WP:ESSAY and WP:ADMASQ, together with a paucity of correct referencing. I doubt WP:GNG. I cannot spot it. The term is not a neologism per se, but this appears to be a 'new thing' not (yet) having notability. The odd reference scheme means ity is a WP:V failure 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, Economics, and India. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article reads like an advertisement for the plastic weaving industry in the city of Dharavi. However the weaving of plastic has taken place around the world for practical applications for example clothing from synthetic fibers, Kevlar for armor, industrial upholstery, artists works, etc. It's not a new thing, it's just not something that happens solely in Dharavi. The sources are not verifiable that the plastic weaving industry in Dharavi is particularly notable enough to distinguish it from other 100s of other places around the globe. I agree that this seems like both an essay, but even more so like an advertisement or promo. Netherzone (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netherzone. Both promotional and has essay concerns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. reads like an essay and sounds promotional. It contains unlinked references and likely includes original research.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular economy in the Indian textile industry for an essentially similar article. The edit history of that one speaks for itself 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reminds me of the discussion I voted on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular economy in the Indian textile industry and I think it should be deleted for similar reasons. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't read particularly promotional to me. If it were indeed an advertisement I'd expect to see at least a picture or two of what they're selling, and some clue about where to go to buy the products. Rather, I'm left guessing. I'm actually curious to know more. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:08, 10 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. ✗plicit 06:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Frank

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

The article reads more like a CV than a wikipedia article, and may be autobiographical. The subject does not seem to be notable enough to have an article - there are no sources online that I can find about them other than professional or personal sites like LinkedIn and Instagram. I'm raising this under notability concerns rather than on WP:G11 CSD terms out of an assumption of good faith, but speedy deletion may very well be warranted. Pluma (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Pluma (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Women, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete as the individual seems to fail WP:ARTIST - however, given this is a Swedish designer, I would like to see someone fluent in Swedish take a look into her and make sure we aren't missing some significant Swedish language coverage not available in English. Worth noting that the same user has also created a few other articles on Swedish designers (and one company) with what appear to be similar issues: Nikolaus Frank, Lars Lallerstedt, and Frank Etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Swedish-speaker here, I can't find any coverage of subject in the Swedish press (I searched using her name, husband's name, design firm name). There is an English interview w/ them here[9], but I don't think we can base a stub off this + not sure about the source reliability wrt notability. Zzz plant (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've likewise tried and failed to find Swedish sources – searching for Cecilia Frank and designer or design yields nothing in the Swedish newspaper archives I've got access to, for example. Would be delighted to change my !vote if someone has more luck than I have. /Julle (talk) 12:32, 8 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St+art India Foundation

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

The foundation does not meet WP:NORG. References 1 and 3 are not independent, and Reference 2 is about the founder's passing. Online searches return only trivial mentions with no in-depth, independent coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:GNG and not found any WP:RS. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not demonstrate significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless better sourcing can be found (and posted here if possible). The only solid reliable source is Architectural Digest [10] but that's not enough to pass WP:NCORP or GNG. The article is written with a highly promotional tone, the sourcing seems like PR, and Google Arts & Culture should not be used as a citation (it's like asking AI to write an article about a subject). BTW, GPTzero and Grammerly detects that about 3/4 of the article itself was written by AI. Netherzone (talk) 14:02, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle Kids

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG as a software application with hardly any coverage, let alone sustained coverage. Notability issues tagged since 2017. jolielover♥talk 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. jolielover♥talk 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding enough in a BEFORE search at this time to substantiate the notability of this software. There are several mentions of it (not sigcov), but these are trivial or from poor quality sources. Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 2 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Professional Design Firms

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 28 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]

Delete - I couldn't find any sigcov in newspapers.com, pressreader, or google news/books/scholar and I don't see a clear merge/redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:49, 11 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.

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

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

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review