Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists
Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). 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|Artists|~~~~}} 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 Artists (in the visual arts only). 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 |
Artists
[edit]- Mustafa Nader (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)
He does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy. All sources focus on a single event—his cancer diagnosis. There is no significant or varied coverage, and the article appears promotional. فيصل (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Iraq. فيصل (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edd Gould (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've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Europe, and United Kingdom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.
- Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.
- They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Xenia Sackville, Lady Buckhurst (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 tagged this biography of a jewellery designer with notability concerns earlier this month; now having carried out WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Most coverage is tabloid, such as this in the Daily Mail, or passing mentions in the context of her father or husband - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Note that she is mentioned variously as Xenia Sackville, Buckhurst or Tolstoy, or as Lady Buckhurst. I don't think she meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and I can't see that there are specific categories of biographical notability she would fit into, except perhaps WP:NARTIST for her jewellery design. Tacyarg (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Xenia Benivolski (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 art critic and writer does not appear notable. She has written a lot as a writer which is in the article but that is all. 🄻🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Russia, and Canada. 🄻🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The extant sources already demonstrate WP:GNG. Benivolski has been doing collaborations with one of the most significant galleries in the world and has coverage in multiple major publications. Frankly the article sources, as they exist currently, also seem to support notability under WP:NPROF criterion one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for writers and critics. Benivolski has contributed to major publications such as The Wire and Frieze, received significant recognition through the national Gallery of Canada, and been involved in notable projects. There is coverage of her work in reliable sources, such as Artforum and e-flux Journal. I am happy to improve the article by adding these citations to address the concerns raised. Adeline2018 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see lots of writing by her, and interviews of her, but not references about her, which would constitute significant coverage. Please clarify and "ping" me. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Genlin (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)
Highly promotional and of very questionable notability over a WP:SUSTAINED period. Amigao (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Animal, China, Japan, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Agree that the article as written seems quite promotional in tone, and it seems there might possible be conflict on interest concerns, but those are both things to be fixed through editing, not AfD nominations. If you want to go through and reword all the promotional parts, have at it. There seems to be more than enough coverage to establish notability though (some sources aren’t great, but there are enough that are to establish notability). As for WP:SUSTAINED arguments… I see sources from 2016 - 2024 so I can’t see how it applies here? Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, definitely needs cleanup but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep but WP:STUBIFY is appropriate. DCsansei (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Agree that the article as written seems quite promotional in tone, and it seems there might possible be conflict on interest concerns, but those are both things to be fixed through editing, not AfD nominations. If you want to go through and reword all the promotional parts, have at it. There seems to be more than enough coverage to establish notability though (some sources aren’t great, but there are enough that are to establish notability). As for WP:SUSTAINED arguments… I see sources from 2016 - 2024 so I can’t see how it applies here? Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anne Sofie Madsen (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)
Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:
- So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. SilverserenC 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. SilverserenC 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. SilverserenC 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deletion would be an option if she was borderline notable or the article was a hit job, but neither case applies here. The notability seems pretty clear, and the article isn't negative either. If an article about a notable subject is deleted, someone else will eventually come along and write another article. Improvement is really the best past forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: She is a notable fashion designer and has coverage in reliable sources such as Vogue. Moopaz (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Fashion deigner covered by Vogue and other sources listed above. I added the "Update" template to the top of the article, saying "Please help update this article to reflect recent events ..." So, if "potential employers google her" and find this article, they will be greeted with a note making clear the article does not reflect recent events. I hope that helps. Asparagusstar (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: before I would go along with a keep, I would like to see the sources found incorporated into this article. This is my personal opinion, and I've raised it before in other AfDs. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors and if you have found sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: I had a very quick look on The Guardian newspaper website and found two places where she's named alongside far more famous designers. I've added them to the article. She's mentioned in a textbook, admittedly only a photo of an example of her work, but the author must have considered her worth including – Udale, J. (2023). Textiles and fashion : from fabric construction to surface treatments (Third ed.). Bloomsbury Visual Arts. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong delete: I have been in touch with the subject by email. She has made a very strong plea for the article to be deleted as although the details are based on reliable sources, some of them are incorrect. She does not have the time or experience to look for sources which paint a more correct picture of her life. As the article is having a negative effect on her current aspirations, she deserves to have it deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep As Anachronist said, she is notable and the article is neither negative nor gushing. If this article is deleted, someone will create another one. I don't understand how a few details in this article could be "having a negative effect on her current aspirations" - surely she has a portfolio to show potential employers? Yes, the article doesn't cover anything in the last 7 years, and not much for the last 10 years, but Wikipedia articles are not meant to be CVs. Hopefully the "Update" template added by Asparagusstar will help potential employers understand that just because the article doesn't cover the last 7-10 years doesn't mean she achieved nothing in that time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moliere Dimanche (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 is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says
"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."
But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. CutlassCiera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. CutlassCiera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [1] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca talk to me! 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)