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 George Ho (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 15 May 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Tom Seaver.). 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 keep‎. Nominator expressed they might withdraw their nomination but were suggested to let it run it's course. It was pointed that WP:GNG is met - as cited in the discussion. The consensus was unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Tom Seaver

Statue of Tom Seaver (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'm more concerned that the statue's notability is inherent rather than independent, despite the sources. Sure, detailing the statue is nice for readers to know, but such relevant info is mergeable into the parent article, Tom Seaver § Awards and honors. Also, I can't help wonder whether the article as-is violates WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being the creator of this article, I suppose I should give the reasoning behind this. I'd argue keep; the statue notable in it being the first - and, to date, only - MLB park statue in NYC. Its also one of the few statues of sportspeople in NYC in general, depicting an iconic cultural figure of the city. Its also one of the few noteworthy statues in Queens, New York.
Its also a statue which was long fought for and which caused considerable controversey due to the timing of its announcement after the depictee's diagnosis with dementia and, a year later, untimely death. There is more than enough reasonable info about the statue itself to justify a fork, rather than unnecessarily loading up the main article with extra details about the controversy surrounding the statue. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG and per Omnis Scientia. I could repeat much of what they say above, and argue further for keeping this unique and important statue, but what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Randy Kryn (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what comes to mind about this nomination is, why? Maybe you'll see me as too prejudiced, but do I need to explain myself about something this obvious? If that's not obvious, I'll ask this: Do we need (a flood of) other articles about statues of certain athletes, like this person? Sure, a statue is of an honor, but a standalone article about this statue... Seriously, is this suitable for the project? Other than the inscription,( I see no other content that is not mergeable to the parent article, IMO. I fail to see how this article would grow over time, honestly. (No offense to the article creator.) George Ho (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not obvious while both reading the article and noticing its references. This is the first statue placed outside one of the ballparks in New York City, it honors a person many consider the team's all-time greatest player, and was placed while Seaver was still alive in hopes that he would be aware of it. Statues regularly have articles on Wikipedia, including many pages about sport statues. Notable in several directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to have significant coverage in NY Times and, to a lesser extent, the NY Daily News and Reuters. The proposed statue had coverage several years before it was actually unveiled, and there was also some coverage in CBS Sports and Fox News about the statue having an incorrect jersey number. I think the nominator's argument of WP:NOTEVERYTHING isn't exactly applicable here, since one could just rebut with WP:NOTPAPER. However, I will say that the sourcing I found isn't enough to expand this beyond more than a start-class article, at least for the moment. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the initiator, I may have to withdraw this nomination if there are no "delete" or "merge" votes within very short time (i.e. reasonably shorter time than a week) if not less than a week. —George Ho (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to. You can just wait for the natural course of the discussion. MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Mario on this one. Let it run its course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG. While there could be an argument to merge with the Tom Seaver article (though not delete), the statue is a separate entity from the person, and so is appropriate for a standalone article, and a detailed discussion of the statue within the Tom Seaver article would give it undue weight in that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 16 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 14:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Dorion

Charles S. Dorion (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)

Mainly notability concerns per WP:ARTIST, as well as some ambiguity over whether all sources refer to the same individual. See talk page discussion for more details. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:11, 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 keep‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Houston

Graffiti in Houston (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 evidence of passing WP:GNG. Paradoctor (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The bulk of this is written from the point of view of the artistic display of graffiti. If that's how it's meant to be, perhaps the title of the article should be changed to reflect that. I left a little paragraph in the graffiti removal section that reflects the bad side of graffiti. It would be a helpful balance if it also indicated the annual taxpayer cost of Houston removing the graffiti. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maile66 I agree and would welcome more info re: removal efforts. For what it's worth, I'm just adding content as I come across sources, without preference to artistic vs. removal and "bad side". I've also worked on similar articles for other U.S. cities, some of which are the opposite and are more focused on removal efforts than art. Thanks for contributing to the article!, which I hope will continue to be expanded. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 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.
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 03:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noël St. John Harnden

Noël St. John Harnden (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)

Promotional in tone and a clear WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG fail in my opinion. Aspening (talk) 01:21, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trace Fryer

Trace Fryer (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've done a deep BEFORE search on this person by all three names she has used, as well as the name of her gallery, but have not found much more than social media, primary sources, user-submitted content. Note that there are two other people named Trace Fryer out there so a careful search is necessary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. There were couple mentions of shows that took place at her gallery, but no mention of her or about the gallery itself, so does not meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. As a musician I could find nothing. I found one thing that she wrote, for STEAM Journal, but that's not enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Current sourcing is not enough to establish notability either. Bringing this here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source Assessment Table below
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Two images of her work and an artist statement authored by the artist User-submitted content No Two images and one short artist's statement ✘ No
Steam Journal table of contents - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/
 No It's the same publication as above, just the table of contents for the journal which lists her name Table of contents for user submitted content No Table of contents listing her name only ✘ No
No Wedding announcement and gift registry User-submitted content No wedding announcement in a template ✘ No
No Art Center Alumni newsletter User-sumbitted announcement of a show she was in No One sentence stating she had a work in a show ✘ No
Animal Studies Association - https://animalstudies.org.au/about
 Association Yes Australian association No Mission statement for the Association, does not mention the artist at all ✘ No
Animal Studies Association image gallery - https://animalstudies.org.au/gallery
 ~ Association website with images by artists Yes Association No One image by her in a display of about 30 other artists ✘ No
No B-Corporation statement about her own gallery Tax status and mission statement by the gallery she owns No User-submitted content, written by the artist themself ✘ No
Blog that accepts user-submitted content No Blog with a mission of "Want Your Pics Published Here? No One sentence mention about a unicorn painted on a utility box by the artist Starlah Burke and this artist using the name Trace Johnson (one of the three names she uses) ✘ No
Yes Press release about galleries who will provide art for a show Yes Reliable art magazine No Simply lists the name of the gallery owned by Trace Fryer ✘ No
Yes Reliable weekly art tabloid Yes Been around for years No An image of an artist's work who showed at her art gallery (Name-check's the gallery's name only) ✘ No
No Press release for a show at the gallery Yes Art magazine seems reliable No Press release - user-submitted content ✘ No
No Table of contents listing the artist's name for a short artist statement and written by the artist, same as citation User-submitted content No Artist statement by the artist and two images of her work ✘ No
Animal Studies Association - https://animalstudies.org.au/gallery
 ~ Duplicate of citation 6 Yes User-submitted content to an Association's website No One image in a website "gallery" among ~thirty other artists ✘ 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}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Two images of her work and an artist statement authored by the artist Yes No Reference to her acceptance to an international art exhibition. ✘ No
Steam Journal table of contents - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/
 Yes Accepted artwork in publication about Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics education (STEAM education). Yes Table of contents for user submitted content No Table of contents listing her name only ✘ No
Yes Art Center Alumni newsletter Yes Confirmation by the publication that she is a graduate, year of graduation, as well as mention of notable exhibition at the San Diego Natural History Museum. No One sentence stating she had a work in a notable show. ✘ 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}}.
  • Comment regarding the second source assessment table. None of the these three sources meet WP:GNG by a long shot. The Human Animal Art piece in Steam Journal is not independent nor is it secondary, because she wrote it, created the two images and submitted it herself to the journal. A two sentence artist statement she wrote herself is not significant coverage. WP needs to know what others have said about her and her work, not what she says about it. WP:SIGCOV would be something like an independent column-long review about her work in a notable art magazine or newspaper (authored by someone else), or a chapter on her work in an art history book. The second source is simply an entry on a table of contents listing her name and the title of the artist statement she wrote. That is not significant coverage, it is non-independent trivial coverage, a simple name check. The last one is a single sentence in her alumni newsletter, therefore non-independent, stating that she had a piece in a show. That is not in-depth, independent significant coverage either. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying and I will look for that type of article as well as improved references. Starlighsky (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The uniqueness of the artist working with and publishing articles in animal culture and related issues is noteworthy. Starlighsky (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky — Note: Starlightsky is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    Keep 73.247.25.130 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC) — 73.247.25.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    KEEP, This person has several credible sources online showcasing their artistic contributions as well as humanitarian causes, including a website listed under https://www.tajartinc.com/ which has been registered since 2015, and https://somethingromantical.com/ which showcases Trace's current musical venture. SensoryX (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)— SensoryX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Both of these citations are user-submitted content by the artist themself, so they do not contribute to notability. I'm really curious as to how @SensoryX and the IP 73.247.25.130 above found this specific AfD out of the blue to make your first edits ever to the encyclopedia. Please explain, as it's unusual. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am submitted this information because I have seen this person's work, and have been to their establishments in the past, I am not the person noted in this article. I am not submitting on anyone's behalf, Im only submitting my own personal information that I know to be true. Im also not responsible for your feelings of "this being unusual", so I do not have to explain that. Is this site now authenticated based on if something being typical now?
    I'm not sure why your expressing personal feelings here, wikipedia is meant to showcase information about the articles headline, and I have done so. I'm only speculating, but you seem to have a personal issue or agenda with this page unrelated to its authenticity. SensoryX (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, no. Saying it's "unusual" is not a feeling, it is an observation. Wikipedia has almost 7 million articles; it is unusual that two brand new editors, who have never edited WP before would find this specific AfD out of the blue to make their very first edits. And no, I do not have any personal issues or agendas. Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the previous voter, uniqueness is not the same as notability, which is required for a Wikipedia article that covers how/if she has made a mark in independent media. This one is an attempted resume and personal portfolio like any that could be found at her own sites. It appears that she is making an honest living with some intriguing art and writing, but there is not enough for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to add that the author is unique in the creation of Animal-Human art. Uniqueness is mentioned in WP:NAUTHOR as "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;".Starlighsky (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

@I respectfully disagree that this artist was unique in creating "Animal-Human art". Depictions of animal-human hybrids have been around since prehistoric cave painting. Also, consider depictions of the Griffin, Minotaur, Centaur and other mythological creatures. Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any individual work or art could be considered unique because it was created by a human being, but the more important requirement in the cited provision is "significantly new" for which I agree with Netherzone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My line of reasoning is that it is significantly new because of the contemporary publications and exhibitions with science related societies such as the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEAM_education#The_STEAM_Journal
Australasian Animal Studies Association Starlighsky (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The STEAM journal citation is user-submitted content authored by the artist, it consists of two images and a short bio. It is not independent significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not about hybrids, though.
The contemporary artwork address abstract issues like the work of Eckhart Tolle did. Starlighsky (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for another inquiry about this but it's unclear what you are saying. Could you provide an example of what you mean by "Animal-Human art"? What is the definition of this genre, and what are the reliable sources that state she is the innovator of "Human-Animal art"? Is it something Eckhardt Tolle wrote about her work? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthrozoology is a good reference point to what Human-Animal art is in contemporary art. The Australasian Animal Studies Association (AASA) is a society that addresses this in terms of their contemporary art exhibitions. I will look up references on this issue. Starlighsky (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the field of Animal Studies, and many artists who have worked in that field. In fact, I can think of many other contemporary artists who have been working in that area for decades. What is needed are citations that specifically state that she originated/created the field. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are various artists who have approached this topic, yes.
I just to add that the issue is separate to what was discussed near the top of this thread. There is artwork of human animal hybrids, but the artwork about human animal behavior in terms of science is a separate issue.
The artist did not start the movement, but is unique in that the artwork was covered by a journal on Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics education (STEAM education) as well as the Australasian Animal Studies Association in terms of their exhibition of the art of the person from the U.S.. Starlighsky (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starlighsky Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citation overkill, and also the source assessment table above. I flagged the statement While in college she illustrated for The Beastly Ball at the Los Angeles Zoo. The Beastly Ball is a fundraiser with interactive events for and at the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association. which was cited with this https://zoo-guide.com/la-zoos-beastly-ball-2024-an-overview/. The citations shows that the The Beastly Ball exists, but there is no mention of Trace Fryer that I can see, You removed the {{fails verification| date= May 2025}} tag without providing any new information to prove the statement. Please slow down and see if you can respond to the notability issues with reliable sourcing, not just more of the same unreliable sourcing. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened is that the illustration for the Beastly Ball is published, but the source will not meet the standards for Wikipedia. I thought it was logical to delete the statement about the illustration work until I can find a reliable source for it. I will keep working on it. Starlighsky (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you removed the statement, but please, scroll up to the top of this entry, expand the Source Assessment Table and try to understand the concept of reliable sourcing, and why this article on a BLP was nominated for deletion. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will work on the issues that you have brought up. I created a 2nd opinion source assessment table with what in my opinion are reliable sources. I will work on the issues that you present in the 1st source assessment table. Starlighsky (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are never a reliable source. Please read Help:Introduction to referencing/Reliable sources --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that from the table and will try to find a better reference. Thank you for your insight. Starlighsky (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the sources showing much notability of the subject. That she had some galleries faeturing her work, it not notable as manyother artists get their stuff featured too. Certanly not enough for stand alone article. Reads like a promotion or resume of the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:00, 15 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

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=1290499739"