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 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 18 May 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiti in Houston). 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 no consensus‎ for deletion, and none likely to emerge. asilvering (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma

Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (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)

Filming has not yet begun, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 08:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://x.com/sapphicspielbrg/status/1921957642097889287
  • Comment: I'm a little leery about keeping this based on the current sourcing. While filming has started, that's just the starting line - the moment at which we can start considering if a film's production is notable. There's really no coverage that I can find of the filming. There are some announcements about the cast and so on, but not really anything about the filming. My point here is this: let's assume that either everything stops here or the movie were to get indefinitely shelved and we have zero further coverage of any of this. Or it releases and, despite the involved people, it gets no fanfare or reviews. Would the current sourcing be enough to pass NFILM/NFF? My concern is that we're banking on future coverage to more firmly push this into NFF or NFILM territory. It's just that I've seen films get kept at stages like this, only to end up getting deleted at an AfD further on down the line so there's a risk of kicking the can further down the road and there being additional work to search for sourcing later. I mean, odds are high that this will release and gain coverage, but like I said, there were a lot of other films where this was also assumed and it never released - and not every unreleased film gets Batgirl type coverage. Not saying I'm going to argue against this, just that this should be considered. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I basically agree with you on all this. It's almost certainly going to be finished and will definitely be notable when it does, but it's best to be safe rather than sorry with these kinds of things. Given the borderline nature of this case I can understand some preferring to keep it, but given that there's not that much to cover about the film at this juncture besides the plot synopsis and the director and cast, I don't see much of a reason to not hold the article in draftspace. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"there's not that much to cover about the film at this juncture besides the plot synopsis and the director and cast" so you mean everything meaningful about a film ? And there's more than that 2A01:CB0C:8827:E100:51DD:6B0D:C17:2B9 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The director, cast and plot synopsis is obviously not everything meaningful about a film. That may be meaningful enough for an iMDB entry, but articles that amount to database entries on Wikipedia are undesirable. Ideally there should be more to say, like about the production and the reception and its cultural impact. Schoenbrun's previous film, I Saw the TV Glow, has a reasonably fleshed out article with these details. The article on the first John Wick film, a featured article, has many, many more meaningful details. The article for Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma is basically a WP:STUB, and if it is retained, will likely remain so until further substantive coverage of it comes out. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously, we can't predict the future, that's a weird complaint, do you want to right its reception and cultural impact before it's released ? it's like that for every movie page, hell half of them are emptier. 2A01:CB0C:8827:E100:51DD:6B0D:C17:2B9 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it's like that for every movie page, hell half of them are emptier" Yeah, well, they shouldn't be. And, no, I don't want to write about the reception before it's released. I'm arguing that because there is nothing much to write yet, there shouldn't be an article until there is.
On Wikipedia, we like to be reasonably certain that a future event is going to take place before writing about it, per WP:CRYSTAL. The general idea is to not waste editor time and effort on creating and maintaining an article on something that is expected to be notable, but then gets cancelled or abandoned and then no longer has any chance of having a worthwhile article written about it. Some future topics meet notability far in advance, like the 2028 United States presidential election, which is obviously notable despite not having yet happened. It's almost certain that it will happen, and it is not subject to regular WP:CRYSTAL concerns because it not happening would be obvious major news with significant historical implications.
But other topics, like future films, need a bit more lead up before they're sure things. Films get cancelled all the time, and with rare exception, they're usually forgotten not long after with very little coverage of their failure, so unfinished films are rarely notable. As I said, it's a borderline case, because this film just started filming but hasn't got much coverage yet, so I think it might be a little too soon. Others disagree with my opinion, however, and that is the thrust of this deletion discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack honestly, some additional clarity on this would be very useful to have in the WP:NFILM guidelines. We justify keeping a lot of articles based on "the filming has begun" with effectively no coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 14:18, 25 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. 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.

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=1290953599"