Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Points of interest related to Arts on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Deletions
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

Contents

[edit] See also

[edit] Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

[edit] Other pages

[edit] Arts

[edit] Visual arts

[edit] Vp.art

Vp.art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, new, art form (see edit history). ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom. I nearly went for a speedy request, but thought maybe I was just being harsh. Think I was right the first time Ged UK (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - That was my initial thought, but it doesn't quite fit into any of the speedy categories as far as I can see. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no claim of notability. sources are very weak --T-rex 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Smith (illustrator)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Matt Smith (illustrator) Articles for deletion/Matt Smith (illustrator) (2nd nomination)
Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biographical article on an illustrator that still does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Earlier AfD resulted in "No Consensus", and in the six months since then, no reliable sources have been found. The citations provided in the article are sufficient only to confirm non-controversial details, not to establish notability. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'll say the same thing I said last time: contributer to numerous children's magazines (including a cover), independent comic books, and album covers, plus winner of several small awards, most of them referenced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required. Having and doing a job is not criteria for notability. There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable. --neon white talk 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ForestWander Nature Photography

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/ForestWander Nature Photography
ForestWander Nature Photography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A father and son company that takes photos of rural West Virginia and that gives many of them away via the internet. They were once a finalist in one category of a competition, and I'm willing to believe that there was once an article about them in the Charleston Gazette (although either its server or my browser refuses to display this). And -- plastic at the ready? -- you may choose to purchase the prints too, via the links thoughtfully provided in the article.

However, Wikipedia is not a web directory, the company doesn't seem to have won any competitions, there's no mention of any exhibitions or substantial coverage in any magazines (let alone book-length publication), and it all seems of very minor note; unless of course you want free screensavers of rural West Virginia, in which case Google will no doubt locate them for you.

Moreover, the only contributor of substance to this article has been User:Forestwanderer. I start to suspect COI.

I prodded this article on 6 June. Forestwanderer proceeded to make a number of edits to the page, which to me indicated a desire to keep it; I therefore removed the prod notice myself.

The last of the edits by Forestwanderer has a summary pointing people to further justifications to be read on the talk page. Yes, do take a look: it's quite revealing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to be blatent WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete there is some notability. A local newspaper article (the link worked when I tried it) And finalist in a Nature Conservancy photo competition is not nothing. But it is not enough to justify an article. It may be that this photographer will gain enough attention to merit an article at some future date.Elan26 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see notability here and this is blatant advertising and a conflict of interest to boot. freshacconcispeaktome 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Personally I would have db-spammed it at first review since it's blatant advertising, and the author is same as company name, so never NPOV. The democratic way will do too. Shoombooly (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Should have been G11'd - blatant spam ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
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 --JForget 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chalkmaster

Chalkmaster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The lack of any non-local coverage and a relatively scant amount of local coverage given the links provided in the article leads me to the same conclusion as that of the nominator. Erechtheus (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for not notable. Tabor (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. As a Torontonian myself, his "legend" nevertheless seems to have escaped me. There are plenty of sidewalk chalk artists up here. He seems no more notable then the rest. freshacconcispeaktome 14:46, 9 June 2008 (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.
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 --JForget 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Couper

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Matt Couper
 Articles for deletion/Matt Couper (2nd nomination)
Matt Couper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

conflict of interest: article created by subject, self-promotional, dubious notability Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless "presented in major collections throughout New Zealand" can be referenced, and includes public collections as per WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability seems marginal at best, no sources other than the artist's own website, and autobiography.-gadfium 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. All I can find are some group exhibitions [1], [2] and a $250 prize [3]. Not notable yet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NN & WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This 4 year old article fails WP:BIO and independent WP:RS and was likely made by the subject of the article himself here Artene50 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Slightly stronger than weak delete. Although WP:UNKNOWNHERE and its corollary are lousy arguments for AfD, I'd have to say that, having worked in the New Zealand art scene for many years as a reviewer and artist, I have heard of him, though not very much. I know he's exhibited at the Sarjeant in Wanganui, though, which is one of the country's better know provincial galleries. Whether it's enough to meet notability standards here, though, I doubt. And I can't find much evidence of his work being in major collections nationwide. BTW, "Matt couper" +art -wikipedia returns some 650 ghits. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't find any reliable sources for this article. Soxred 93 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no claim of notability. An artist is expected to have some semi-notable art. --T-rex 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't turn up any substantial news references to this fellow, and being in collections doesn't really prove notability to my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2008 (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.
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Logan

Andrew Logan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Makes a lot of claims, but no real assertation of notability. He's had his art everywhere, but I don't see any reliable sources about him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Reluctant Keep he's been written about and seems recognised by the press which presumably gets over Notability issues - one of 20 'celebs' in this [4] and known for his Alternative Miss World [5], and seems to be a Derek Jarman short film about him [6] article about him and his museum on BBC [7] though that is local news section.-Hunting dog (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
oh and in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery [8], that provides an independant citation for the "retrospective was held at the Museum of Modern Art, Oxford, in 1991" *walks away muttering IDONTLIKEIT...* (modern art not anything personal to the BLP)-Hunting dog (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "Claims" are assertions of notability, TPH! And in this case they are mostly justified. Certainly notable, though more referencing needed. He was most famous before the internet age, but there will be plenty in print. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Works in the NPG and the Arts Council collection [9] (it's a Flash site, but he'll show up if you search his name).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like an article with worthwhile potential...Modernist (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2008 (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.
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 - sufficient reliable sources provided to establish notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Klein (art activist)

Paul Klein (art activist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established —G716 <T·C> 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Article is of low quality, and importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete have tried looking for ref's but only seems to have local news mentions, so think fails notability - Hunting dog (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Over 10k ghits for '"Paul Klein" art Chicago', ok lots off his blog, but he seems a notable figure there. Article was created in Feb 7 by a three-edit username, so no help to be expected from there. Johnbod (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I came back to look at this actually with a view to maybe withdrawing delete, I agree there's lots of cross blog talk about him, but I can't actually source some of the existing claims, though info might be out there somewhere. Re being "a contributor to the New York Times", NYT is pretty well archived but couldn't get hits on this Paul Klein on their site, [10] google search brings up something he wrote for the Chicago Life supplement of the Sunday New York Times (which seems to be a regional advertising supplement). Think article might shrink rather than grow unless someone else is more successful in finding reliable sources for the info. -Hunting dog (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources found by Google News [11]. I've put some of them in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems unnecessary advertising, blog ad infinitum. Modernist (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised by Phil Bridger, I feel this satisfies WP:BIO at this time. RFerreira (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Paul Klein is a critical faculty in Chicago's art community whose efforts extend beyond curation or self-interest. Well-worth inclusion here. Agreed that a cursory web search yields insufficient background, but sure that sufficient press exists, confident that Wikipedia page is good basis for ongoing compilation, opportunity to review Klein's legacy and impact. Please keep and allow recognition in searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgfunderburk (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 June 2008 (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.

[edit] Visual arts Proposed deletions

[edit] Architecture

[edit] Architecture Proposed deletions