Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William Graham (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 29 November 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Joris.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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. 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|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 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

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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Joris

Eric Joris (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)

Artist that doesn't appear notable. Can't find any indication that this person is an important figure in the arts, or played a major role in a significant or well-known work. A search of google and linkedin indicates that the creator of the article is or was an employee of the subject. William Graham talk 16:02, 29 November 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Wikipedia in culture#In fiction. What I'm seeing here is a rough consensus that we should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. As we already have content on this in another article and nobody has presented a compelling argument against redirecting it there, it seems like redirecting respects that consensus. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Editors (novel)

AfDs for this article:
The Editors (novel) (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)

A non notable new novel that happens to be transparently about Wikipedia editors. Deleted in October following a deletion discussion [1]. Restored to draft in good faith by someone who thought it might become notable. The draft was moved to mainspace by a different editor, unaware of the previous deletion, but who, in page talk, believes it is notable, having added some sources. I disagree. Source analysis below. I also note that we have a curious case of conflict of interest here. This article is about a book about us the editors of Wikipedia. That cannot be helped, but if we do not uphold our standards of notability for a book like this, then that COI will be plain for all to see. If we essentially advertise a new non notable book about Wikipedia editors, then we say advertising such material is okay - as long as it is material about us! So I believe a firm line should be taken on notability standards. As and when it clearly meets WP:NBOOK, it may be included, but it should not be included until that happens.

Source Analysis:

The following are all the sources on the page. They primarily fail for not being independent. I cannot see that any count towards notability. I have collapsed the list for readability.

Source Analysis
  • Numlock News [2]: Previously considered at old AfD. Self published by Walt Hickey. WP:SPS Red XN
  • Studlife (2 of) [3], [4] By Avi Holzman: Washington State University student newspaper. The July article is a Q&A with the author. Clearly not independent. A month later the interviewer wrote a summary of the forthcoming book, and thus this is clearly also not independent. Red XN
  • Inkshares (2 of) [5] [6]: Self publishing platform. WP:SPS. Red XN
  • New America [7]: Publicity blurb from an event announcement. Not independent. Red XN
  • Katy Trail Weekly [8]: This newspaper describes itself as "A community news and lifestyle pieces for the neighborhoods around the Katy Trail in Dallas, Texas" and says "A Turtle Creek resident, Harrison has just released The Editors..." So it is a local news piece about a local author who just published a book. That is WP:MILL. It is specifically excluded by the last sentence of WP:BOOKCRIT criterion 1. Red XN
  • GeekDad [9] Publicity blurb from product/event announcement. Thus not an independent review. Red XN
  • Fantastic Fiction [10]: Book seller's blurb. Not independent. Red XN
  • MyHighPlains [11]: Previously considered at old AfD. A local news station. As for Katy Trail Weekly, this is excluded by WP:BOOKCRIT C1. Red XN
  • The Guardian [12]: This is a piece by Stephen Harrison (the author), about Wikipedia. Clearly not independent. Red XN
  • Yahoo Life [13]: Previously considered at old AfD. Part of the Yahoo for creators programme. WP:FORBESCON was discussed regarding reliability but in any case, based on an interview and thus not independent. Red XN
  • Slate [14]: Lists articles written by the author. Clearly not independent. Red XN
  • Wikpedia20 - MIT Press [15]: by Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison, so clearly not independent. Red XN

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Literature. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging previous attendees of last AfD. Hemiauchenia, CurryTime7-24, Carrite, Yngvadottir, Significa_liberdade Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Pinging the particpants of the AfD that closed last month: @Hemiauchenia:, @CurryTime7-24:, @Carrite:, @Yngvadottir:, @Yngvadottir:, @Significa liberdade:. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is still not a single reliable, non self published book review. A basic requirement for any book to warrant a Wikipedia article. Copying my comment from the last AfD: "Did a WP:BEFORE but I couldn't find enough to unambiguously pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The first source is an interview, which seems questionable as a source of notability for a book. The piece is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure. The second source is a local news station, which I think is of questionable notability. The third source "Numlock News" is a self-published substack blog which as far as I am aware does not count towards notability". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reviews from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, or Library Journal, which many have argued "review everything". I found one review from Novels Alive, though I've never heard of the site. There's also another interview published with Yahoo. If more sources are found, ping me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Best I could find is an Opinion piece in the Washington Post [16], rest of the sources are as discussed in the table above. I still don't think we have book notability, but with one decent review in a RS I'd probably give a weak !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only mentions from sources that are otherwise reliable are unacceptable because they are not independent of the subject. A further search for both author and book still turn up nothing that establishes notability. If the outcome here is again to delete, WP:SALT may be worth considering this time. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source is independent, though not yet used.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per [18] Check Out BookLife, [Publishers Weekly]'s site for self-published authors! BookLife is [Publishers Weekly]'s site dedicated to the world of Self-Publishing. According to [19] BookLife functions like the Kirkus Indie program that Kirkus Reviews has (see WP:KIRKUS), where the author pays to get their book reviewed. It's therefore not independent and does not count towards notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or at least draftify again so as not to lose all the work. I think we need a broader discussion than just the same editors who AFD'ed it last time, but I'll just add a couple of things here, one of which I wrote on the talk page.
    • Per WP:NBOOK, "Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline."
    • Geekdad and Katy Trail Weekly are independent sources, and the interview on WFAA currently in External links is an independent source. Harrison is also interviewed on this source (see 1A (radio program)), along with WP editors who discuss issues relating to editing Wikipedia and presenting information.
I just don't see the point of deleting something that can be useful to readers of Wikipedia. Anyone reading the book would expect to find it on Wikipedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful."
WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the criterion from WP:NBOOK does not apply here. This is an AfD, not speedy deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the new source you mention, the 1A radio program, is an interview, so not independent. It does not count towards notability. And to note, you are the editor who moved this back to mainspace.[20] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a rule preventing me from commenting, please let me know. I explained on the talk page why I improved and moved the article, being unaware of a previous afd.
There are hundreds of biographies using interviews as sources. It is an independent source if it is not paid or solicited, or in any way connected to or emanating from the subject. This one indicates that the topic is being reported by an independent media outlet. Obviously not to be used to quote the interviewee saying how wonderful the book is, but there's nothing to prevent its use as a source of neutral info about the book. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are very welcome to comment - expected even. I was merely noting the fact. A book that uses an interview as part of its research also provides analysis, detail and research beyond the interview. A radio interview is just an interview. An author interview about his book is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Have been offline; now have limited access.) As I believe I said at the previous AfD, the article can be recreated when there are independent sources to establish the book's notability. I've read carefully through the discussion of sources here and I also don't see evidence that that requirement has been met. Sources with information about the book, such as interviews with the author, are only useful Laterthanyouthink's argument) if the book itself meets the notability threshhold to have an article, or if it can usefully be mentioned in another article (on the author, on books about Wikipedia ...). Otherwise, first things first. Wikipedia can't have an article on every book published. It needs evidence of notability: at least 2 solid independent reliable sources. I don't advocate draftification because we risk this just happening again; and more kimportantly, because if/when the book does become notable, the article should then be written based mostly on the independent sources about it. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I agree that Substack publications are worth essentially nothing from a notability perspective as they are self-published sources, I disagree with the characterization of GeekDad as a “publicity blurb from product/event announcement” and Katy Trail Weekly as WP:MILL. There is a specific carveout in NBOOK criterion 1 stating that it can be satisfied by "...published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." Both of these are, quite clearly, reviews and newspaper articles, respectively.
GeekDad: Nowhere is it advertising a product or an event; it is a double book review that is a secondary source independent of the subject in accordance with NBOOK. Taking the source characterization as quoted at its most charitable, that could be easily interpreted to include any review ever of anything because reviews do tend to be read by people and potentially used in a purchasing/listening/consuming decision (as applicable). This is in direct contradiction of NBOOK and a conjecture as severe as that is worth its own RfC and this AfD is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion. One could also argue, using that logic, that any media coverage of almost anything is just publicity because it raises public awareness of X topic and, therefore, media coverage itself is not a basis for notability…and we’ve just blown up a fundamental pillar of GNG.
Katy Trail Weekly: It is a front page story “above the fold”. Calling a newspaper’s front-page top story MILL is probably a bit of a stretch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a front page story in a freely distributed local newspaper serving Katy Trail, Uptown, Turtle Creek and Highland Park neighbourhoods of Dallas. The piece is subtitled "Local Author". That is not going to be an independent review. The local paper was approached and carried the piece because the author is local, not because the book was what caught their attention. They even say that in the titling and in the article. If we accept reviews like this for notability of books then every single published book is notable. Local papers always run such pieces. We absolutely should not be taking such run of the mill reporting as in indication of notability of a book. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note - I would agree with GeekDad being a review and a usable RS. My reasons are as follows:
GeekDad has been seen as a RS in the past. Jonathan Liu is a senior editor for the site - has his own email address and everything. In the opening paragraph of the source Liu mentions reading the book. The coverage for The Editors is five paragraphs long.
Now, he does mention that he was given review copies of the books. This is extremely, EXTREMELY common with reviewers. Very few reviewers or media outlets purchase their own copies of a book. Mentioning the review copy is a requirement for transparency purposes and is not a sign that he was paid to write a nice review about the book. Liu does have an affiliate link for Bookshop.org, but this is also something that's pretty normal to see on most review outlets. Even the NYT has this in their reviews. He's not getting paid by the publisher, in any case. It's very different from a sponsored post, which is when the publisher pays an outlet to write nice things about them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted, Redirect to Wikipedia in culture#In fiction, where it is mentioned. PamD 06:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough independent, reputable reviews at this time. Thriley (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We need to be careful with the sourcing here. I posted above about how GeekDad is a usable source, so I won't bother summarizing that here. I more want to look at the other reviews in the coverage section, as they're all pretty concerning. The entire first paragraph looks like it's being sourced to book blurbs rather than any actual coverage or review. I couldn't find any evidence that they were part of anything longer - for example, there's nothing to show that Taylor Lorenz published anything about this book on The Washington Post's website. For those unaware, book blurbs are short, positive statements solicited by the publisher or author to promote the book. They don't tell the person exactly what to say, but they will likely tell them a general gist of what they want.
With Numlock News, the source is an interview. Now, I don't always agree with the idea that interviews can't give notability because well, if the interviewer or publication is notable or could be seen as a RS, then that's a sign that the interviewee did something they found interesting. I doubt anyone is going to agree with that, so I'm not arguing that an interview can give notability. I will say, however, that the comment about the book's quality was done in a very offhand manner and doesn't have any depth to it.
For Katy Trail News, to me this is a case of it being a weak source. This is a free weekly newspaper/magazine put out in Dallas. There's not a whole lot of info about it as far as readership and such goes, but it does have a set staff and the piece is written by the Editor in Chief. It's a local piece about a local person so that does weaken it quite a bit, but we need to ask ourselves if a review would otherwise be usable from this site. I would say yes, but it would not be something I'd want to stake notability on because it's a weaker source. The fact that it calls some of the book blurbs reviews is kind of concerning, further weakening the source.
I will take a look, but wanted to put my two cents in about the reviews, since those are usually what will make or break an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia in culture#In fiction. I really wanted to try and keep this article because honestly, it's interesting. However there's really not much out there. There are a lot of interviews out there about this book, but those aren't considered usable as far as notability giving purposes go. The only good review comes from GeekDad, as Katy Trail News has some definite issues with it that make it a weaker source at best. The other sources are all primary, as they are written by Harrison or otherwise directly related to him.
Honestly, my fingers are kind of itching to go in and remove the first paragraph from the reception section, as book blurbs should never be used in a reception section. These blurbs will never be negative, unless that's what the publisher wants. Blurbs are perfectly fine and suitable on a book cover, but they should never be used in an article. Honestly, I feel like including those are going to make it that much harder to establish any notability if someone were to find a few usable RS reviews and add them to the article. The author section should be removed and repurposed with a development section that covers the author as it applies to the book. I get that he writes about Wikipedia, but as it's currently written it feels very separate to the article topic.
The reason I want to improve the article is that I think the idea of redirecting it to Wikipedia in culture is an excellent idea. We can keep the article intact so that when others cover the book in enough detail to pass NBOOK, we have an article ready to go. However since the article appears to be the focus of a bit of discussion, I am hesitant to do any major edits, especially as it would remove some of the sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:14, 5 December 2024 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts (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 article clearly lacks any WP:independent sources. Xpander (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:01, 3 December 2024 (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 keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Bandits

Cyber Bandits (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)

I don't believe that this film meets the criteria for WP:NFILM and, to my understanding, it has not received significant coverage or achieved notability otherwise. Merging information from this article into the article about its director may be more appropriate. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a substantial coverage of the film in multiple offline books: Craddock, Jim, ed. (2004). "Cyber Bandits". VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever. Gale. p. 208., Nash, Jay Robert; Ross, Stanley Ralph (1986). "Cyber Bandits". The Motion Picture Guide, Volumes 1-10. Cinebook. p. 83., and Martin, Mick; Porter, Marsha (1997). "Cyber Bandits". Video Movie Guide 1998. Ballantine Books. p. 238. All have critical commentary in addition to cast info, plot synopses, etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: added a few things to what has been added after nomination. Meets GNG and/or NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to additions from 4meter4 and Mushy Yank. Toughpigs (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unconvinced this subject is notable; all sources added to the articles added only seem to add like, a sentence of coverage at best. These fall under Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS at best. I can't check out the offline sources for obvious reasons but at a glance the lack of coverage here doesn't show much inherent notability beyond verifying the film existed, which doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:NFILM, which states: "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." So far all of the sources I'm seeing are falling under at least one of these. Unless actual significant coverage can be shown, I'm falling firmly under the fact that this subject isn't notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 Some of the sources have multiple paragraphs, the fact that we chose to only use them in a certain way is not indicative of what is inside them. The delete argument here is both spurious and in bad faith, as you are basically accusing those putting these sources forward as lying and further being rude to people improving the article. Way to be WP:UNCIVIL.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, as I am merely basing this off of what I am able to access and off of relevant policies in relation to them. Saying a source may not comply with notability policies is in no way rude, and I apologize if my wording may have come off that way.
Allow me to rephrase my concerns so that my stance is a bit clearer: The sources added to the article are sources I am unable to view in their entirety, and the fact only one sentence has been added from any given source indicates coverage is sparse if the source is not being used in its entirety. For an AfD, illustrating that a source meets SIGCOV is the foremost rationale to Keep it, and the fact I am not seeing that makes me hesitant. I apologize for being a bit hasty in my assessment.
To clarify: Which sources contain multiple paragraphs? I would appreciate some clarification so I can more accurately gauge source content. I'd be willing to change my vote if this coverage is significant, as a few SIGCOV sources on top of the others definitely should act as enough coverage to act as the base of an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 realizing I forgot to ping you to notify you of my reply. Would you be willing to clarify the sourcing situation above? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (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. ✗plicit 06:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural entities with sole naming rights

List of cultural entities with sole naming rights (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 hodgepodge of venues which have a naming rights sponsor. No apparent notability or sources to tie them together. No incoming links. See also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sponsored sports venues. 162 etc. (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2024 (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. S. Rama Rao

S. V. S. Rama Rao (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)

Unsourced since January 2009. The only source I can find for him - at least in english sources - is IMDb, which is not considered RS on its own. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2024 (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 keep‎. Please note that this does not preclude a possible merge discussion down the line.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: From [21] page 49 (reflected in the Himalayan Times article[22]), this award was the fourth -- and least important -- of the New Years' arts awards from the Royal Nepal Academy. I'm ok with a keep for now (in the interests of a close), but believe that a subsequent merge to Royal Nepal Academy leaving cats intact would be preferable given the minimal detail (inclusion of awards with limited coverage at their issuing organisation's article is fairly common). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:37, 9 December 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

Pablo Picasso in Fontainebleau

Pablo Picasso in Fontainebleau (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)

This three-sentence stub that is fully encompassed and addressed at Pablo Picasso fails the WP:GNG test for a standalone page. However, the page creator contested a WP:BOLD merge so I am seeking AfD consensus for a redirect to Pablo Picasso. (A merge is unnecessary since the content was already merged.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness (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)

I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is 

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pincus

Anne Pincus (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)

I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The German article is also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

Tabish Khan (art critic) (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)

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Altadena, California)

St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Altadena, California) (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)

As far as I can tell this is a purely local church in a small California city. Being burned down doesn't make a structure notable and I'm not seeing any coverage of this place not related to the fire. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hence why I said "could be". Three of the four sources on this article are websites that exclusively post church-related news, and the other is the churches website. Could it gain long-term notability? Possibly, but I doubt it. I do see a CBS and AP article mentioning the church but right now it seems this was a random local church getting WP:ROTM coverage for its association with one event. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. None of the sources are independent of the church, so there's no evidence available that it passes GNG and should thus not be retained in article space. However, per Jclemens' suggestion that new sources could emerge given the building's destruction, I would be OK with retaining in draft space. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community United Methodist Church of Pacific Palisades

Community United Methodist Church of Pacific Palisades (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)

Per WP:NCHURCH needs to meet WP:GNG. The mere fact it burned down doesn't make it notable. Seems like something notable for one event, similar to what is described in WP:1E to me. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 21:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirect targets could be United Methodist Church or List of Methodist churches#United States. Merge target could be Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles#Culture. This comment is not a vote in favor of deletion or redirection. jengod (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church congregation founded the town in the 1920s. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing WP:GNG-qualifying coverage of the building. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The building as a building need not have coverage. A "church" in common usage refers both to the congregation of people and the religious building in which it meets. Regardless, this coverage has been significantly expanded since nomination and appears to meet GNG with adequate RSes. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It looks like the building had marginal historic notability and received substantial treatment by the local historical society ([24]). The congregation may have additional notability beyond the structure, considering the amount of material that went into the documentary. I'm inclined to believe most of it is locked away offline. Even still, a Google search exempting the word "fire" gives me hope that this is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The LA Times and Roberts News sources clear WP:GNG separate from the coverage of its destruction. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kind of local coverage, but in depth and California is a sizable state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rodríguez Villegas

AfDs for this article:
Manuel Rodríguez Villegas (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)

Not notable. No significant new events since 2016 deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness (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)

I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is 

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford (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)

I wanted to open this up for discussion, given I've also contributed to the article in question on multiple occasions previously. It's primarily down to the fact that most of the information in the article is duplicated within List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester, a ceremonial county of which Salford forms part. Added to this, there is no dedicated "List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester", with a redirect taking readers to the Greater Manchester page. It is appreciated that Salford is a city in its own right and other UK cities have their own similar articles, but it does feel like a needless 'repeat' of a portion of the larger article for Greater Manchester. Very much welcome others' thoughts. Mmberney (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deletion of this page - there is no unique information on this page that is not included in the wider Greater Manchester page and therefore no new learning for keeping it updated. A dedicated Manchester page used to exist but was also deleted. I would propose to just keep the 'Greater Manchester' page going? ChrisClarke88 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connolly Mill

Connolly Mill (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)

Only reference is to source the history of the county in which the mill was supposedly located, can't find any references that support the place actually existed. Definitely fails WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions


Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/visual arts Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/architecture

((Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|arts)) ((Category:wikiproject arts|deletion))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts&oldid=1260224314"