Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts
![]() | It has been suggested that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists be merged into this page. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2025. |
![]() | Points of interest related to Visual arts on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style |
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.

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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Viraj Khanna (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:CREATIVE. The references provided are mostly WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Agent 007 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and West Bengal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Dolphish (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Weak delete: Some references appear to be appropriate and reliable, such as The Hindu and Hindustan Times, among others. Baqi:) (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- The references all used in article are largely sponsored content. Please check WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, the link above is not The Hindu but Forbes India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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.
- Coat of arms of Lethbridge (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)
No independent RS on the page. Mentions can be found in local media, but given that most of the page here is a description of the image, surely this would be better included as a section on Lethbridge where the image is already shown. WP:NOPAGE JMWt (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge with Lethbridge: Not independently notable. Content should be merged into the city page. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the merge idea?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Merge with Lethbridge: Agree with Merge - Merge content to relevant section and Delete Asteramellus (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Nick D. Kim (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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. -- Reconrabbit 23:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Visual arts - Proposed deletions
- Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)