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 Netherzone (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 14 June 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chen_Yanran (assisted)). 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Yanran

Chen Yanran (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)

Not notable; no serious sources. Ponazzi (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Bartek, Marek (2024-12-16). "In Conversation with Yanran Chen". Numéro Netherlands. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Yanran Chen is a rising star in the art world. She made a striking debut at ComplexCon 2024 in Las Vegas, unveiling six sculptures from her latest project in collaboration with Liu Cixin, the Hugo Award-winning author of The Three-Body Problem. Yanran's artistic vision reflects profound introspection and a keen awareness of the complexities of the external world. Her work is deeply influenced by the bold storytelling of Japanese manga and the avant-garde aesthetics of experimental French cinema. She has also collaborated with renowned global brands and media outlets, including Balenciaga, Songmont, and R13."

    2. David, Fito (2023-02-13). "Yanran Chen: Exploring the Dream W". Vanity Teen.

      I cannot link this article because it is on the global backlist at meta:Spam blacklist. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2024-11#vanityteen.com. I see no evidence that the magazine is unreliable. The article notes: "Yanran Chen @yanran_chen_ is a Chinese artist known for her surrealist illustrations that explore the dream world, where time and space have no limitations. She is only 17 years old, but her surrealist drawings have already led to collaborations with Balenciaga, Issey Miyake, and Moleskin. Her colorful, modern, manga-leaning style is infused with feelings of anxiety, fear, and horror, and is influenced by old Japanese horror comic artists Kazuo Umezu, Shintaro Kago, and Suehiro Maruo. Her art reflects her worldview as a teenager and artist in the 21st century, mixing beautiful and ugly, bizarre and real, and opposing forces and concepts that coexist in her work."

    3. "Chinese teen's sci-fi art series showcased in Las Vegas". China Daily. 2024-11-21. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "The Playpower Collection, an innovative art series by 19-year-old Chinese artist Chen Yanran and her studio Accro Studio, was presented at ComplexCon 2024 in Las Vegas over the weekend. ... Chen, born in 2005, serves as the lead designer for the Playpower Collection. Her distinctive, postmodern sci-fi aesthetic aligns seamlessly with the themes of Supernova Era."

    4. Patidar, Natasha (2025-06-12). ""Neon Dreamland": A Journey Into Yanran Chen's Surreal World". The Beijinger. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Last weekend, I stepped into a space that felt like stepping into someone else's subconscious – a neon-hued, oddly tender and strangely futuristic dreamscape. Yanran Chen's first solo exhibition, “Neon Dreamland,” housed in the newly opened ART FOCUS space in Beijing's vibrant 798 Art District, is less of an art show and more of a portal into an alternate dimension. At only 20 years old, Chen has already established a distinct visual language: rooted in surrealism but infused with the glossy, fast-moving energy of anime, science fiction, and digital culture. Walking through the exhibition, I found myself repeatedly stopping, not just to admire the technical detail, but to process the emotional tension in the works. It's a world where innocence and eeriness coexist – where childhood nostalgia meets artificial intelligence."

    5. Wilson, Abbie (2025-05-28). "Artifice as Emotion: The Posthuman Aesthetics of Yanran Chen". Our Culture Mag. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Yanran Chen’s Neon Dreamland, her first solo exhibition in China, isn’t a debut — it’s a simulation of one. Hosted in the new immersive art space ART FOCUS, nestled in Beijing’s 798 Art District like a glowing node in the city’s nervous system, the show feels less like stepping into a gallery and more like logging into someone else’s subconscious — someone raised on anime, speculative fiction, and the ambient dread of being terminally online. Chen, born in 2005, doesn’t make work that suggests influence — her sculptures, installations, and illustrated avatars breathe the language of the posthuman without needing translation. She doesn’t channel the digital age — she excretes it. The exhibition opens with her personal work — The Mechanical Lifeform, Dinner, pieces that first turned heads at ComplexCon LA, though even that setting now feels quaint compared to the eerily calm, ultra-designed zone in which they’re currently housed. These works don’t explain themselves — they glisten."

    6. Payos, Alyanna Raissa J. (2025-05-28). "Yanran Chen's First Solo Exhibition In China Is Out Of This World". Vogue Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Yanran Chen’s artistic universe is a world without borders. Cyberpunk chimeras, peculiar female figures, and surrealist scenes beyond imagination are brought to life in her latest exhibition. Titled “Neon Dreamland”, it marks the 20-year-old artist’s first ever solo show in China and is also the opening exhibition of the newly launched ART FOCUS space by Tang Contemporary Art."

    7. Hu, Denni (2025-03-28). "Gucci's Bamboo Universe Unveiled in Shanghai Exhibition". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Also included in the exhibition are four figurines created by Yanran Chen, the 19-year-old Chinese sculptor known for her work that blends body horror and surrealism. Marrying fashion and fantasy, Chen’s dolls, perhaps her alter egos, are seen carrying miniature bamboo bags and modeling looks from recent collections. "

    8. Trang, Quỳnh (2022-10-06). "Discuss with Chloe Chen, the young artist, on her amazing surrealistic illustrations". Harper's Bazaar Vietnam. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "Emerging illustrator Chloe Chen (Yanran) is only 17 years old, but her surrealist drawings have already led to collaborations with brands like Moleskine and Balenciaga. Studying in Japan, the young Chinese artist first picked up a paintbrush at three. By 13, she had started to create extraordinary illustrations rich with imagination and creativity. Most of her work excavates the dream world, where time and space have no limitations. At first glance, Chen’s artistic universe might seem playful and light, often featuring girls submerged in the intangible space between childhood innocence and jaded adolescence. But lean closer to the canvas and you’ll plunge headlong into a quizzical realm where nightmares and mysteries swirl alongside soul-deep ruminations on the self. Chen’s colorful, modern, manga-leaning style is entirely infused with feelings of anxiety, fear, and horror."

    9. "陈嫣冉的超现实主义插画，来自于漫画、梦境、人与时间的灵感交集" [Yanran Chen's Surrealist Illustrations Draw Inspiration from Comics, Dreams, Humanity, and Time]. Elle China (in Chinese). 2022-09-19. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "新锐插画师陈嫣冉（又名Chloe Chen）只有17岁，但她的超现实主义画作已经促成了与Moleskin、巴黎世家等品牌的合作。这位年轻的中国艺术家3岁时第一次拿起画笔，13岁就可以创作出充满想象力与创造力的插画作品，而如今，她正于日本深造。她的大部分作品挖掘了不受时间与空间限制的梦境世界。"

      From Google Translate: "Emerging illustrator Chen Yanran (also known as Chloe Chen) is only 17 years old, but her surrealist paintings have already led to collaborations with brands such as Moleskin and Balenciaga. This young Chinese artist first picked up a paintbrush at the age of 3, and was able to create imaginative and creative illustrations at the age of 13. Now, she is studying in Japan. Most of her works explore the dream world that is not restricted by time and space."

    10. Dai, Xiaoli 戴小橦 (2024-03-23). "国际潮流文化盛事ComplexCon来港 点燃时尚消费新热度" [Global Street Culture Event ComplexCon Comes to Hong Kong, Igniting a New Wave of Fashion Consumption] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.

      The article notes: "除了潮流品牌，展区内还有来自世界各地的艺术家们携最新作品亲临现场与公众交流。来自北京的05后新锐艺术家陈嫣冉的作品展位成了不少参观者打卡的热门点，她这次特别带来了新作品“梦魇机器人”。记者注意到，她作品的主人公大都是留着短发的少女，陈嫣冉表示，少女的想象一定程度上源自于她对于本我的追溯，“部分是我艺术人格的视觉化呈现，但并不是说这些角色完全代表我自己。”这次的“梦魇机器人”则是希望通过赛朋博克的机械外壳，探索敏感纤细的人心变化。"

      From Google Translate: In addition to trendy brands, artists from all over the world also visited the exhibition area with their latest works to communicate with the public. The booth of Chen Yanran, a post-05 emerging artist from Beijing, became a popular spot for many visitors to check in. This time, she brought a new work "Nightmare Robot". The reporter noticed that the protagonists of her works are mostly girls with short hair. Chen Yanran said that the imagination of girls to a certain extent comes from her tracing back to her true self. "Part of it is the visual presentation of my artistic personality, but it does not mean that these characters completely represent myself." This time, the "Nightmare Robot" hopes to explore the sensitive and delicate changes in people's hearts through the mechanical shell of Cyberpunk."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Yanran (simplified Chinese: 陈嫣冉; traditional Chinese: 陳嫣冉), also known as Chloe Chen, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:14, 15 June 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. Ultimately after almost a month, no SIGCOV identifiable. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyayubihime (film)

Oyayubihime (film) (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)

Unfortunately, after looking around for sources to the best of my ability, searching under both English and Japanese names, I can't find any good sources for this film. The other-language equivalents of this article appear about as barren of useful references as this is (although the Japanese article is about the anthology series of films that this is part of, rather than the film by itself). The only reference I do know of is this article about Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim which briefly mentions it, but obviously that doesn't pass SIGCOV. If anyone can find any good sources, I'd be happy to see this kept, but as the situation stands I'm not seeing it. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please offer one suggestion, not three. Also, the outcome of an AFD can not be Rename or Move as that is an editorial decision that editors must discuss. So, if that is the result you want, argue to Keep and then a Move can be discussed on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that relisting comment was partially addressed to me, so I'll reply. "Rename" seems to be a perfectly valid and pretty standard AfD !vote. As it implies refocusing the article on a broader subject matter that includes the topic discussed here, I think it is best to leave my !vote the way I originally conceived it. "Rename" implies a Keep, yes, but I assume any good faith closer will understand that. As for one suggestion not three, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#One bolded vote, which clearly states:

Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect".

Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Left guide (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SilviaASH. Needs non-trivial coverage to satsify WP:GNG and I am not finding any, both for the entry and the series. Also not seeing any usefulness or appropriateness to leave it as a redirect, as suggested by the sock above. Οἶδα (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as an ATD , to be more consistent with the already existing JP wiki entry for Kowai Dōwa (コワイ童話, Scary Fairy Tales) series, as checking the JP wiki s alternate language options, when english is selected it leads to this article whish is only one of the six titles, which is not consistent as the Kowai Dōwa JP article refers to the six stories in which this is a part of. Have yet to find SIGCOV even for the Kowai Dōwa series at least in the english sources, so not opposed to Draftify as well, for those more familiar with Japanese sources to check for SIGCOV sources to support its stay. As regards to the Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim I see it cannot be linked together, as it is not related directly as a closer look shows their basis is totally different, they both just so happened to feature a "giantess" named Saeko in the POV of the victims in both their plot. On a sidenote in my search of more SIGCOV for this Japanese made series did find an existing english Wiki article titled World Fairy Tale Series which is also an adaptation of these classic fairy tales albeit of a larger selection covered. Lorraine Crane (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    to be more consistent with the already existing JP wiki entry for Kowai Dōwa (コワイ童話, Scary Fairy Tales) series, as checking the JP wiki s alternate language options, when english is selected it leads to this article whish is only one of the six titles, which is not consistent as the Kowai Dōwa JP article refers to the six stories in which this is a part of.

    Or just disconnect the Wikidata page? How does this address the reason for deletion? That is not a valid ATD. Bundling creative works into single articles is fairly common on JP wiki. Furthermore, the JP wiki article was only connected to this article in 2022 by a globally locked sockpuppet[1].
    The article fails WP:GNG. You admit you also cannot find SIGCOV. The most significant mention I could find is only brief coverage in Kinema Junpo centering on Kankurō Kudō. Every other source I could find were programme guides. Draftification is only appropriate for recently created article with rare exceptions. This article has existed on English Wikipdia for over 15 years. Draftifying so that "those more familiar with Japanese sources to check for SIGCOV sources to support its stay" is not appropriate. Οἶδα (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please select one of the accepted outcomes for AFD closure and "Rename" isn't one of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 July 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 09:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (artist)

Scott King (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)

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 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 redirect‎ to KDE Software Compilation 4#Visual. No delete or keep, but a good common ground for a redirect (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Project

Oxygen Project (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 the notability guideline for web content. All of the current sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources like blog posts. A quick search for more sourcing didn't turn up anything. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been keeping an eye on this AfD, but I'd be perfectly alright with a redirect or selective merge to a broader article if there's consensus for it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:56, 19 June 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. The discussion has been derailed with bludgeoning and personal attacks, but I see a general agreement that there is insufficient quality sourcing to write an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

Randy Cooper (Model maker) (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 no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.
    As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.
    Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.
    Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response.
    Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications
    The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic),  Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!
    And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b "aren't online"? You know better than to require online sources... Toadspike [Talk] 07:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying I can't verify them, so I can't say how extensive they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on independent sourcing that speaks to notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote something similar earlier in the conversation. By now, people may not be reading what I wrote, so I'm writing again. Because of the ignore all rules rule that was made to make sure that articles that are obviously notable are not deleted because of rules, I think that voters should think about whether they believe this article is notable rather than about policy. As I said earlier, why would non interview sources be any more credible than interview in this case? Many credible sources found him notable enough to write about. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of bludgeoning or you will lose access to edit this discussion. That's your opinion to which you're entitled, but it does not overrule consensus which is what you have consistently been trying to do. Star Mississippi 02:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The consensus so far is to keep. Are you trying to divert from a consensus you don't like by accusing me of bludgeoning? "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I don't like being lawyered. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could write a longer statement about how IAR, while being a good reason to be bold, is not a free pass to ignore broader consensus whenever one wishes to or how the common sense of "noteworthiness" or "celebrity" is not actually what is meant by the guideline we've unfortunately titled Wikipedia:Notability (the former more commonly considered under WP:SIGNIFICANCE), and instead we mean "can we write an article meeting the core content policies" (q.v. WP:WHYN).
    I'm not sure how much that would actually help though, so I'll — while acknowledging the fact that we have discretion to bend even the core content policies (barring WP:NPOV) given a Very Good Reason — simply opine that editors have failed to establish the no doubt Very Obvious Very Good Reason we should be measuring the Obvious Notability by something other than the usual standard, which does in fact require sources to be independent of the subject, among the other requirements (direct and in-depth, reliable, secondary). Given that, in my opinion, we lack both the Very Good Reason or the sources that can meet the usual standard, I see no other option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need IAR, it meets GNG ("...now I know my ABC's") Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am convinced by above explanation and nomination statement. Notability has not been shown by the participants in this discussion. Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. Now for the real meat and potatoes, I am not seeing sources that meat [;)] the requirements for Notability as Alpha has explained above, emphasis on secondary. I tried looking his name up in conjunction with different movies that he worked on or even the models that he sells but I couldn't find anything. (Unfortunately?) As a species we usually value the person that put the design on paper more than the person that puts that same design into the real world and this seems to be a similar case. Moritoriko (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last sentence sounds like whataboutism. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ENGVAR, wikt:encyclopaedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I caught my own mistake, but you saw it first. However, there are so many bad articles on Wikipedia. This is a decent one. Why waste time when there is so much to do? Orlando Davis (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you didn't understand my last sentence. What it means is that we have an article about Sagrada Familia and about the designer Antoni Gaudí (the person that put the design on paper) but most of the stonemasons who have carved the intricate detail (the people that put the design into the real world) haven't received coverage for them to meet GNG.
    Looking up the movies he worked on, the large pieces that receive coverage (DeLorean time machine for example) seem to be designed by someone else and Cooper just worked to make the design a reality. Moritoriko (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Often, model makers are respected for their craftsmanship, and it doesn't matter that they don't design. The talent is in the handwork. For example, model makers of ships and aircraft. Norman a Ough didn't design the ships he made for movies. However, Randy Cooper has designed his own work. Also, there is the fact that the modeler's unique style in the models makes the models uniquely his own, even if he follows a design. Anyway, what matters is what Randy Kryn said: the article passes GNG. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. it was declined multiple times, but the editor is not required to follow AfC recommendations so we ended up here. Star Mississippi 01:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it was declined so many times is that many reviewers tend to have a deletionist bias and often don't even read the articles that they turn down. They assumed that no changes had been made when changes had been made. Several other experienced editors on this forum believe it is a worthy article. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is encyclopedic; editors often get that confused. You can say positive things about a subject if credible sources have said those things. Reviewers are not necessarily experts. Some have less experience than I do. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some parts that I considered when making that comment:
    He considers himself "really lucky because a lot of people don't get a chance to do what they really want to do." (who cares?)
    Cooper has said his favorite kits as a child were the Saturn V and the Apollo kits. (who cares?)
    Having transitioned out of the film business,... (tone, He left the film industry)
    I looked through the IMDb pages of Solar Crisis, Batman Returns, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man 2, and he isn't mentioned at all. I'm really not sure what the claim of notability is supposed to be? He built some props for a couple movies and now designs his own model kits. Moritoriko (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say who cares but that's how to write boring articles. Those are interesting facts that make it readable. Just because you don't care doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. It seems to me like you're just making stuff up. We don't use IMDB on Wikipedia. (If it was up to me it would be ok) Stargate, Starship Troopers, and Bicentennial man are referenced on Metacritic. The rest by Sci-Fi Fantasy Modeller. The fact that he has articles and has been interviewed by so many credible sources means he is a notable model maker. Orlando Davis (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember the name of the guideline or link thing that I was thinking about when I said "who cares", but yes it was a bit crass. If anyone else reading this has an idea of what I meant to say, I'd welcome suggestions. I know we don't source from IMDb on Wikipedia, but what is important is that the 4 movies I mentioned are not the ones that you have sourced to Metacritic. In fact they are sourced to a source from 1979, more than 10 years before any of them came out. I don't see any comment about the last point but I found the hot link I wanted for it, WP:FORMAL. Moritoriko (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The date for the article was wrong. It is 2014. I just changed it. Thank you for pointing that out. If you want to change the article in the areas you pointed out, be bold and do it yourself. It is a trivial issue in my opinion. Orlando Davis (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many articles have you written? 1? And you think you're ready to be involved in an AFD debate? Orlando Davis (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft as a WP:ATD, to provide further opportunity for research and development. BD2412 T 01:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete owing to insufficient reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is insufficiently established - per others here and the additional five AfC reviewers who rejected the draft on grounds of notability. I would not oppose returning it to draftspace for development if anyone thinks the issues can be addressed (the possible notability of his company has not been discussed, for example), but with restoration subject to WP:DRV. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:00, 23 June 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=1295624626"