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

House of Fine Art

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

Was deleted back 2018, with a "The" in the title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art. Justlettersandnumbers's rationale from back then still holds. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, placing "The" in front of the article name does not suddenly make an article notable. It was not notable when deleted in 2018, and remains so today after a google search. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's nice of Onel5969 to draw attention to my nomination of this for deletion in 2018 (thank you, 1L!). However, what stands out in that discussion is not my small contribution but the clear understanding of policy shown by two editors, Jytdog and NitinMlk. I encourage those who plan to contribute to this discussion to read through the previous one first. The new article seems to be a borderline WP:G4 candidate, by the way, but probably best to let this run now that it has started. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a speedy delete per WP:G4 would make sense, but I think it is looking like it will be deleted anyway if the current trend on this AfD holds. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It seems this gallery was not notable in 2018 and is still not notable. The sources consist of a short Forbes contributor PR piece on the gallery; the KIAF Seoul pieces is a modified press release; ArtNet is a subscription service for galleries and their listings, their "reviews" are not the same as serious art magazines and besides, it's a dead 404 link; The first Financial Times source is an article about NFT's with a mention of HOFA in one sentence, it is not an article about the gallery; the second FT source is about the artists, not about the gallery itself. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc of Statehood

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

I could not find any non-routine coverage of this beyond the site for the capitol grounds themselves. Likely better incorporated into a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also searched for independent significant coverage but was unsuccessful. It does not make sense to merge/redirect it to a list of public art installations because it is not art, it is a series of informational plaques or "markers" with text about each county. That is not the same as public art or public sculpture. Even Washington State doesn't describe it as art, and the Fact Sheet lists the "artist" as "Unknown", so for all we know it could have simply been designed by the sign shop or foundry who cast the plaques. The sourcing consists of one sentence in an Arcadia Press book, (there have been many discussions about the reliability of Arcadia books which are mainly written for tourists); the listing in the Washington State database; and a draft of a proposal for Heritage Park itself, which is a work-for-hire pre-design study between the capitol and two consulting groups. Maybe it could be merged into the Washington State Capitol article in the subsection Art and monuments where it is already mentioned? Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaman (Hansen)

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

Could find no other coverage of this beyond the capitol grounds website. Even searching the artist's name and shaman just brings up various other shaman-related sculptures. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been in the state capitol collection since 1971, as recorded here. Although I don't know how this represents a Shaman. A state capitol collection is notable for that fact alone - the artwork, owned by the entire state, was selected for the purpose of presenting credible sculptors and their work to the state as a whole. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a niche SNG I'm unaware of, "being in a state capitol collection" does not confer notability. Secondary sources are always needed to establish notability. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the sculpture itself is not notable, but the sculptor who made it is. There is a very brief stub on the sculptor James Lee Hansen that could use improvement. Merging the content about this sculpture into that stub would be a win-win alternative to deletion. The sculpture itself fails WP:GNG and is solely sourced to the non-independent commissioning organization. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somebodyidkfkdt None of those links work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they should be fixed now. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice, good catch; withdraw. My apologies! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and nominator's withdrawal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries of Life

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

A non-notable statue by an artist that seems notable yet has no page - a pretty sad occurrence. Apologies for spamming this with all of these Olympia public art installations - most (but not all) appear to be non-notable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a good source showing its existence on the lawn of the state capitol. What, did you just go down the navbox and nominate everything for deletion? If the state of Washington believed that the statue (what there is of it, who decided to place these things there?) was notable enough to place on its lawn then notability, per visual arts criteria of proof of existence in a museum collection, has been achieved. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the navbox, since there were a number of similar one or two sentence articles, but I didn't nominate everything as some of the pieces seem to hit independent notability. Per WP:OR, pages need multiple secondary sources, and I just can't find anything except the Washington Capitol (which are a single source and a primary source at that) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea to Sky (sculpture)

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

Another Olympia public art installation. This one has two sources, but one of the sources has a single sentence about the piece. Should be included on a list of public art installations in the city (and a page for the artist, who appears notable) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler Works

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

Olympia public arts installation with one source. Again, should be simply included on a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Dancing

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

Only one source and it's primary - from the state government itself, which put it up. The artist is probably notable and it could probably be featured there, but I can't dig anything up about this particular statue. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the capitol mention and that a state capitol's statue collection is by definition notable. As long as the existence and placement of the statue is obtained then the visual art criteria has been met. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not an !vote at this time) - WP really should have an article on the sculptor, Phillip Levine, who was a somewhat well-known figurative sculptor. I'm fairly certain he would meet NARTIST criteria for notability. If there were such an article to redirect this to, that would make the most sense to me. A quick BEFORE didn't find any independent sources on this specific sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Somebodyidkfkdt and GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the excellent research by Sombodyidkfkdt. Those sources would be a helpful addition to add to the article for readers of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, good catch and good expansion; apologies for missing that one. - Withdrawn by nominator. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics in Asia

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

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are about the topic (as a whole, not about some subtopic)? Fram (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [1]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag

AfDs for this article:

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

Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of additions since the redirect. It looks like several sources have been added. "Complete Flags of the World" is a one-sentence mention that the cedar tree has long been a symbol of the Maronites. "The orange and the ‘Cross in the Crescent’: imagining Palestine in 1929" is a good journal article, but where it mentions Maronites it is mainly focused on the cedar symbol and how it ended up on the Lebanese flag. "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" is the same, explaining why the modern Lebanese flag has a cedar on it. "Double vision in Beirut" is a one-sentence mention in an opinion piece. Page 262 of "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World" does describe a "Maronite flag", but doesn't seem to (from my searching in the Google Books preview) spend more than a sentence describing the flag itself. "Flags and arms across the world" seems to have almost exactly the same text as "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?", which does mention that the Maronites used a white flag with a cedar on it but not much more. I can't search in the "National Eucharistic Congress" source and jeancharaf.org seems to be a dead link. Searching for "drapeau" in "Voyage en Orient, Volume 1: Les femmes de Caire; Druses et Maronites", the only mention about this subject seems to be the sentence "Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs." This sentence doesn't have any context and is very confusing to me – I suspect there was an accompanying image not present in the linked version. The last two sources are cited for mentions of the flag, not analysis, so I presume they contain none.

Some of these sources may already have been present in the pre-redirect version, it's hard to tell. Anyhow, I still don't think the concept of a Maronite flag has received any coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in sources explaining how the modern Lebanese flag came to be. Thus, I still believe this should be redirected to Flag of Lebanon. Toadspike [Talk] 17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charaf’s source is available via archive as sourced and National Eucharistic Congress is open to search. As for Nerval you have to read the entire quote: “—Allez où vous voudrez, dit-il; tous ces gens là sont fort paisibles depuis que nous sommes chez eux. Autrement, il aurait fallu vous battre pour les uns ou pour les autres, pour la croix blanche ou pour la main blanche. Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs.” Red Phoenician (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the Wikipedia policy for dealing with this situation? Should @Red Phoenician have gone to deletion review even though the page was not actually deleted but rather redirected? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review (DRV) is only for reviewing whether the close accurately reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, not for relitigating the issues discussed in the AfD, so it is probably not what what Red Phoenician was aiming for. Also, if the recreated page is a duplicate of the original, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:G4, but the new sources probably make this different enough that G4 does not apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD had a clear consensus to redirect, and I don't think it should be possible to overturn it in this way (with limited engagement with the new AfD) without the restorer of the redirect having made any effort to demonstrate that the changes to the article now establish notability. I.e. I don't think it makes sense to close this as "no consensus" simply due to lack of participation, since there is a preexisting consensus. Stockhausenfan (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The original reasoning was that there were not enough sources to back the existence of a flag. Now that there are plentiful sources on multiple flags the goalposts have been changed to require sources of even more detail. Must there be an entire book dedicated to the history of the Maronite flag? The sources include many vexillological books/articles which should be adequate. Furthermore the claim that the Maronite flag is identical to the Lebanese flag is disingenuous for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that Lebanon and its flag were created solely for the Maronites and disenfranchises other religious groups of Lebanon. Secondly, this implies that the Maronite Cross flag and flag under Bashir Shihab II have any relation with the Lebanese flag which is not true and to paint them as such would be misinformation. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of Lebanon: and page-protect so that we don't have to go through this yet again four months from now. Consensus was very clear in the November AfD, and none of the facts or sources have changed to vacate our previous decision. I assumed good faith in the previous AfD, but can't see this as anything other than POV-pushing now. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page has enough sources to justify its existence

Maropedia1 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flag of Lebanon per OwenX. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

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

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review