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

Ariel Schleicher

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

Unfortunately, I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist. It appears that this is an autobiography. None of the exhibitions are notable, and I cannot find evidence that their work is held in the permeant collections of notable museums or national galleries, so it's an WP:NARTIST fail. Also not finding that they meet WP:GNG as what is present in current sourcing and what was found in the BEFORE is mostly social media or primary sources such as interviews or user-submitted content. No significant reviews or articles in academic journals or art history books. It seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, Czech Republic, and New York. Netherzone (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Franklin

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

Recently prodded/deprodded stub article about a short-lived gallery in NYC. In a BEFORE search I was able to find some info about a few of the artists who exhibited at the gallery, but the only thing I could find on the gallery itself is the closure announcement on ArtInfo.[1] I think this is a press release and not actual reporting on the gallery itself as there is no by-line. I found nothing on the Wikipedia Library other than the review of Jamisen Ogg's show (which is about the artist's work not the gallery), and JSTOR turned up nothing. The single ArtInfo piece on the closure is not enough to meet WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Museums and libraries, Business, and New York. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the one to prod it. I found a similar lack of information about the gallery as Netherzone. Moritoriko (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherent because they were in NYC or had one notable artist; see WP:NOTINHERITED. If they represented multiple notable artists, then that would be different. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Kpg jhp jm 08:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Draft:Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma: This title was previously a redirect to Jane Schoenbrun until the redirect was overwritten with the move from Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (film). The article should have been merged with the draft instead of being moved to overwrite the redirect. This article's content should be merged with the draft, along with a WP:HISTMERGE of the two, and then the redirect from this title to Schoenbrun's biography should be restored. Protect this title and any of its variants (which should likewise redirect to Schoenbrun) to prevent any further creation in mainspace until the draft is ready. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote, the film has actually in fact begun filming per Schoenbrun's Twitter account. However, as reliable secondary sources have not reported on the production at this time, the nominator is correct that the film should not currently have its own article. I would advocate an early WP:IAR close of this AfD to restore the appropriate status quo of redirection and implement the merge to the draft. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have boldly merged this article's content to the draft. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Visual arts, Popular culture, and Sexuality and gender. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG and seems to be a semi-big budget film produced by Brad Pitt and starring Hannah Einbinder and Gillian Anderson. Not your typical run-of-the-mill slasher film. Maybe merge the best parts of the draft to this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't really that much in the draft to speak of. However if the article is kept I believe the draft history should be merged into the history of the mainspace article. Given the significant media attention afforded to Schoenbrun's previous success with I Saw the TV Glow, this film will definitely be worthy of an article, the question at hand in this AfD is whether or not it's WP:TOOSOON. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilviaASH. Since TOOSOON is an opinion essay, and this page is already GNG well-sourced as a film which is now actually filming and not in the idea stage, I felt a keep the better option. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Filming had begun ^[1] --ProudWatermelon (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 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]

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Baseball, and New York. 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.

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

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

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[1] ttps://x.com/sapphicspielbrg/status/1921957642097889287

[1]