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

Nick D. Kim

AfDs for this article:

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

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Science, and New Zealand. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source referenced in the article is not an independent source as it is written by the subject. The claim of notability in the article is ‘best fan artwork’ from a fan convention, which is not a notable award that would be considered as "won significant critical attention" or any other part of WP:ARTIST. My search for other possible significant coverage in independent reliable sources turned up nothing. I found instead a self-published book and wikipedia copies. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation count is solid but falls short of WP:NPROF#C1 for me, and I don't see any indication that he passes any of the other NPROF criteria. I unfortunately couldn't find any independent coverage that would indicate that he is notable as a cartoonist. MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ascertained judgement of the notability of the subject as a cartoonist reached in the 2009 deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am sure you know, notability standards have changed a lot since 2009. Do you have any sources to demonstrate his notability as a cartoonist? No usable sources at all were presented in the 2009 discussion. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while generally an h-index of 27 is not quite enough to pass the bar of NPROF by itself, combined with other activities it usually is based on discussions in the past. In this I would argue that the comic activity is substantial enough to confer notability. --hroest 17:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, but I don't see any independent commentary on his cartoonist activities. Barely anything is cited, either. This specific subcategory of the Sir Julius Vogel Award does not seem to be enough to confer notability. -- Recon rabbit 23:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ARTIST. The subject, a New Zealander, won the Sir Julius Vogel Award, which appears to be a prominent award in that country. The article could do with better sourcing, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, he won the Fan Award for best fan artwork. What is your evidence that this is a prominent award? The article for the Sir Julius Vogel Awards barely even establishes that the set of awards as a whole is notable, let alone that it is a well-known and significant award or honor. And even if the actual professional Sir Julius Vogel Awards are significant enough to establish notability, it seems like an enormous stretch to claim that winning the fan art award is enough on its own to make someone notable. MCE89 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, according to the Sir Julius Vogel Award article, the "fan award winners" from "1997-2000" are "details unknown." It would be interesting to hear which of the four criteria of WP:ARTIST could possibly be met by winning a "fan award" that no one else can remember who won for four years at a time. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DesiMoore Even then, there's about nothing else establishing him. In a similar case to Taufik Rosman, the article would be better as a redirect to the award. Roast (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly I'm not familiar with WP:NPROF, but it looks like he could meet #C7a, as he appears to be the go-to expert for NZ media on a number of issues, most notably meth contamination: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Nil🥝^Talk 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And some more: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Just for some context - in NZ "methamphetamine contamination" of housing (especially rentals) was a huge concern a ~decade ago, and numerous "testing" services were set up (which were in all likelihood no more than snake oil salesmen). Dr Kim was in the media a lot during that time, basically saying the fears were overblown. Along with the media stories, there's a journal article here, featuring Dr Kim - [14]

And some other articles I found not related to meth but other environmental contamination stories in the media - [15] [16] [17] [18] Nil🥝^Talk 01:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an unsourced BLP and not a single secondary source that provides any real coverage of Kim as a person has been provided. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not provide any reliable sourcing for the claims made in the article. Science and Ink appears to be self published, as does Succeed in Science and Avoid Getting a Real Job. I don't see anything online to show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though sources provided by Nil NZ just above are not yet in the article they seem to provide further notability. The subject also won a Sir Julius Vogel Award. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the sources found by NilNZ above convince me that notability is proven. Unfortunately for this person, googling "nick cartoon" tends to get you Nickelodeon, sort of a search engine optimisation nightmare. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because there is literally only one source in the article (a primary citation to his just his dissertation), and the rest is completely unsourced and/or simply original research, we are left to find coverage elsewhere. I would have voted to keep given that he was the recipient of the Sir Julius Vogel Award (which, given that it had a page, I thought might be grounds for notability), but MCE89's comment above has convinced me that the award is somewhat dubious (its unclear if it actually should have a page at all) and may not qualify as a a well-known and significant award or honor. GuardianH 18:54, 30 July 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Critic Review Aggregator

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

Promotion for non notable publication. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Noting WP:NEWSORGINDIA, refbombed to PR rehashes, dead, and primary sources. Even most of the PR rehashes are for other things and do not even verify content here. Part of a promotion platform with the likes of Tagore International Film Festival, World Film Carnival Singapore, Luis Bunuel Memorial Awards, Cult Critic Movie Awards, Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. Buy an award, earn a review on Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Visual arts, Entertainment, Games, Technology, Computing, Internet, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: using this revision for source numners.
Sources [1], [2], [7], and [13] make brief insignificant mention of subject (simply mention that Cult Critic gave movie awards at a film festival). Similarly source [9] makes brief mention as part of a listicle article and so doesn’t give notability.
Sources [3], [6], [10], [11], and [12] are simply reviews or lists of reviews/rewards. This means they are not independent and do not give notability.
Sources [4], [5], [8], and [13] all were inaccessible to me and so I can’t comment on them.
My own attempt at WP:BEFORE using google news and a standard google search did not reveal sources that could convey notability. However, it did reveal that Cult Critic has ran a couple of film festivals/awards cerimonies. If someone can convince me that this conveys notability I may be inclined to change my opinion (and thus !vote). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 20:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the film festival/award, it's somewhat a case of "who is reporting and in what context". It's not ideal, but an argument could be made for notability if the award results were reprinted by multiple notable outlets. This specifically refers to reprints like this, where a major outlet reprints the list. The gist behind this is that major outlets like say, Variety or Locus are going to be selective in what award results they reprint, so they're not going to reprint some random film festival or award. For example, Dead Meat is a notable YouTube channel and has a pretty well received awards ceremony, but few outlets reprint the results because even with the channel's substantial following they just can't justify it. (Even Bloody Disgusting only reported on the awards once.) Of note, what wouldn't count towards this would be local papers writing about how their local person won an award. The focus there isn't really the award and local coverage of that nature is typically seen as a weak source at best.

With that in mind, I took a look for the award/festival in specific and didn't find anything that would establish that the award is notable. No opinion on the aggregator as of yet, but the site's award/festival cannot help in establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search didn't really take long, as there is really nothing out there. What coverage exists is pretty light and not enough on its own to establish notability. I'm aware that the site is based out of India and that Google doesn't always properly search Indian sources, but there's not really anything to help argue that more/better sourcing exists. If anyone can find anything, I'm open to changing my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Emily.Owl (talk · contribs)'s excellent analysis of the sources above! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:42, 20 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 delete‎. The examples of coverage offered by the article creator were not deemed sufficient by most other participants due to being very brief and/or from primary sources. RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Flag

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

Deleted in 2023 via unanimous AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Homeless International Flag). I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in independent sources to back up claims of this flag being since adopted outside of this one particular non-profit or the person associated with it. I have decent access to Swedish newspaper archives and cannot find any mentions. Also worth noting that author has declared COI. Zzz plant (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Sweden. Zzz plant (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage in Gnews. Gsearch has an Instagram page and an Etsy link to buy, but that's hardly proof of notability. If nothing has turned up since the last AfD, there probably isn't anything... Article is now sourced to orange or red links, so nothing notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Homeless Flag meets WP:GNG through independent, reliably-sourced coverage:

- National broadcaster TV4 – “Kavian var hemlös – nu lägger han all kraft på att hjälpa andra” (3 Dec 2021): at 07:00 – 07:30, the host zooms in on the flag and explains its public display while Ferdowsi adds that “people see the Flag and Hemlösa.se every morning".

- Daily newspaper Dagen – “Premiär för melodifestival för hemlösa” (4 Feb 2015): reports an event where the flag served as the official emblem, quoting politicians and describing its symbolism.

- The emblem is twice trademark-registered with the EUIPO, confirming its distinctive, legally protected status.

These sources provide significant coverage, not mere passing mentions, in broadcast and print media wholly independent of the subject, and demonstrate real-world adoption beyond a single NGO. In line with WP:SYMBOLS a unique flag with documented media attention, public use and formal recognition is prima facie notable. The article should therefore be improved, not deleted. Csamu88 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the previous commentor's rationale. This article does seem to meet the WP:GNG guidelines and has been used widely for notable events pertaining to the topic. I definitely believe this article should be significantly improved but I think that it is too notable for deletion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Trademark has no bearing on notability, and the above characterization of TV4 source is a stretch - it's briefly visible and briefly discussed on a talk show segment. Even if they gave more in-depth coverage, it's shown by Kavian Ferdowsi (the person who designed the flag) during an interview, so it's a primary source - which can't be used to support GNG. Dagen shows only that the organization associated with the flag uses it at an event they're organizing. I couldn't find any RS suggesting that anyone aside from Hemlösa or Kavian Ferdowsi has adopted this flag (or even paid much attention to it). Zzz plant (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent further coverage since the last AFD two years ago. The article's current sources are a mix of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, and WP:TRIVIAL coverage. Appearing in a photo on TV for 30 seconds is not enough for WP:GNG. Astaire (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Csamu88 examples are not examples of significant coverage. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:38, 22 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

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

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review