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 17:59, 25 June 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen Project). 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Project Formerly Known As Kindle Forkbomb

The Project Formerly Known As Kindle Forkbomb (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)

Non-notable art project. Sources are self-published our just WP:ROUTINE mention of when art is on display somewhere. No longstanding impact or anything that suggests it meets WP:GNG ZimZalaBim talk 17:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd characterize those as passing mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of the work in Pold & Anderson (2014) is 700 words. In Pold & Anderson 2018, the book version, it's across 5 pages (56-60). The section in Mancuso is 200 words and so, roughly, is Decker's. This is not what is meant by a "trivial mention." The target of WP:PASSING, which you linked, gives the example, "In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." Jahaza (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that appears to be an essay/chapter posted to an instutional repository, and yes, apparently included in an anthology. No indication of rigorous peer review or heavy citation. To me, that's not WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The journal article is pretty clearly WP:SIGCOV, since it "addresses the topic directly and in detail." You're now arguing instead that it's not reliable, a different criteria (though you keep repeating "SIGCOV"), because it's published in an institutional repository. But, as I stated, it's a journal article. I linked to the institutional repository, because it's available there, but it was published in a journal as the repository itself says:
  • Pold, Søren Bro; Andersen, Christian Ulrik (2014). "Post-digital Books and Disruptive Literary Machines: Digital Literature Beyond the Gutenberg and Google Galaxies". Formules/Revue Des Creations Formelles. 18: 164–183. ISSN 1275-7713.
The table of contents is here[8] and if you click on the ISSN, you can see the libraries that have held the journal. The journal's executive director is (or was) Jean Jacques Thomas and there was an editorial board, etc. It looks like the journal went defunct after volume 21, since its web site hasn't been updated since 2018.[9]
The material was then republished in the anthology mentioned above as well as incorporated into
I don't think it's credible to argue that MIT Press doesn't have editorial review. "Heavy citation" of the secondary source isn't a requirement for something to be considered a reliable source or to count as commentary on an artwork for the purposes of establishing notability. --Jahaza (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think mention one journal article that happened to be included in an anthology rises to significant coverage, but alas. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with it? Academic journal articles are reliable sources, unless the journal itself is problematic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think notability requires more than a single source (this article being republished in an anthology is still the same source essentially). Just being covered once doesn't make it notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found three other different sources in addition to the three versions of Pold & Anderson. Jahaza (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources are also clearly sigcov? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given Jahaza's sources (how would a source in an edited volume be less reliable??? if anything it's more reliable), plainly sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 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. 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[10].
    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.

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=1297357631"