Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists

[edit]
List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists (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 know what to make of this. WP:NOTADATABASE. Hodgepodge of unsourced statistics. MOS:ACCESS violations that I don’t even know how to begin to address. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

[edit]

Arts Proposed deletions

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

[edit]

Flag of Otago

[edit]
Flag of Otago (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)

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lost Mysteries (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'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]


Architecture

[edit]

Clark Patterson Lee

[edit]
Clark Patterson Lee (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)

Notability. Very limited news coverage, mostly mentioned in passing or in a list of other firms. SSR07 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most news mentions are hiring and promotion announcements. Most of the remainder are passing mentions as the architecture firm for some project. I found no significant coverage. - Donald Albury 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlinspike Hall

[edit]
Marlinspike Hall (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 article was tagged for speedy deletion four years ago (by User:Piotrus). The original rationale still applies:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

The tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. Despite the request for discussion, I could not find one.

I agree with the rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE only shows official Tin Tin materials and other licensed sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I oppose the proposal for deletion. Tin Tin has been a notable figure in international popular culture over a very extended period and Marlinspike has provided a comprehensive character development and event framework for much of this time. Several of the Tin Tin "adventures" are set predominantly or entirely in this environment. Wikipedia page view, edit and page watcher statistics appear substantive for a short but well written and attractively illustrated article. Citations and source references are adequate for a fictional subject. Removal would frankly appear to be a pointless and potentially unpopular exercise. If however the consensus is for deletion then the alternative of merger should be given serious consideration. Buistr (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, about the speedy; a fictional location is not included among the valid speedy deletion candidate categories, so that was never the correct approach. As for notability, "Moulinsart" or "Chateau de Moulinsart" are among the most notable fictional locations in Belgium and France, instantly recognisable to millions. We have whole books like this, "The daily life at Marlinspike", which talks about Tintin in general, but also at length about both the village of Marlinspike and the castle. If there is a good merge target perhaps this can be merged, but deletion is not warranted. Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently, I am leaning towards a Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All of the sources discussing Marlinspike are official guidebooks, at least from what I can see here. However, I do not know if the nom or anyone else has partaken in a source search in French sources. I would not know where to start unfortunately, but a search through there may prove more fruitful than an English search given Tintin's ubiquity in Belgium. I won't be changing my vote unless something is found, but I do feel there may be promise that hasn't been uncovered yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fox Building

[edit]
Adam Fox Building (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)

It does not meet presumed notability under WP:NBUILD and while it might mean something in the local community, it's just a run of the mill old building that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article and the sources don't meet the threshold of independent significant coverage needed for for GNG. This appears to be a part of the broader walled garden on Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA buildings/subject matter. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

[edit]
List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) (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)

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Carmel

[edit]
Bank of Carmel (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)

extra hyper-local run of the mill buildings that does not fall under WP:GEOFEAT because it's not protected under national status. Trivial coverage in an Oakland newspaper and SF Chronicle, lots of snippet coverages based on ultra hyper-local Carmel-Pinecone weekly tabloid. This appears to be part of the ongoing construction of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden by one creator. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't yet looked into all of the sources, but at least half of the current ones are press releases, they are not even "trivial coverage", they are press-release based PR announcements placed in newspapers, not SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases for more information. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call press releases are actually important pieces of primary source information that tells a story and is part of the history! For example, "Carmel Notes". Oakland Tribune. Oakland, California. 14 Oct 1923. p. 25. Retrieved 2022-05-24, says "Carmel's new bank was the first and only one the city has had." This indicates it was the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are press releases. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't tell if the article is supposed to be about the short-lived bank or the building. If it's about the bank, it fails the WP:NCORP test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and if it's about the building, which is not on any historic registers that carry presumed notability, it fails WP:NBUILD, which calls for "significant in-depth coverage." What's offered here is a series of primary sources, trivial local newspaper mentions, and unreliable sources like Arcadia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nom that this is part of the Carmel WP:Walled garden, yet another run of the mill local building that is not on the NRHP, thus failing WP:BUILD. I am also in agreement with Dclemens1971 that as a bank it does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for SIRS & SIGCOV. The creator still does not seem to understand that notability is not inherited from allegedly "notable" people associated with the structure. What we have in terms of sourcing is: 1) a nomination form by the Parks & Recreation (primary source); 2) a press-release printed in a newspaper (primary source); 3) another press release (primary source), 4) another press release (primary source); 5) a photo and photo caption in a tourist-trade book published by a marginal publisher (Arcadia) whose reliability is questionable (not SIGCOV and low-quality source); 6) a short piece without a by-line in the hyper-local weekly tabloid, The Pine Cone; 7) a meeting agenda (primary source, really wondering why this is even included?); 8) a 404 dead link in The Pine Cone (hyper local weekly tabloid); 9) an advertisement in The Pine Cone (WTF?); 10) a photo and caption in a report by the City of Carmel (primary source). None of this contributes to the notability of the bank as a business nor the building, therefore also fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looks like Netherzone and Graywalls always come to the plate to delete good articles that have plenty of sources, including primary and secondary ones. This Deletionists mentality is a reason why many have criticism of Wikipedia. An enclypodia should free to write on many topics both of local and national interest. Based on WP:GNG, the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. More sources have been included in the edit request. Instead of trying to delte articles we should be encouraging fellow Wikipedians to add additional sources if needed. I feel that some people are to quick to judge and just delete articles they don't like. That shouldn't be how an enclypodia works to educate them on topics like the first bank in Carmel! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Part of a campaign to get every last ditch of Carmel-by-the-Sea related stuff into Wikipedia, even if they are not notable and there is little to no reliable sourcing, which includes this article. Most of the article's sources are not independent of the subject or are press releases. HarukaAmaranth 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see edit request sources. BTW, the Carmel Bank was a pretty notable bank in its day. It was the first bank in that city. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The various superlatives of first, biggest, richest, largest, oldest in a local villages and townships are not a cause for creating an encyclopedia article. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons outlined by Dclemens1971 and Netherzone Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Netherzone's thorough source-by-source analysis is spot-on as usual, and Dclemens1971 also provides an accurate summary of the available coverage and how it squares up to notability guidelines. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a platform for local tourism projects, we have guidelines for establishing notability which requires a certain standard from sources, none of which are met here. HighKing++ 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. This is certainly not tourism! It about the history of bank, which was the 1st bank in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and part of a Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden of non notable entities 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Honestly, it's looking like WP:CreatedbyGregHenderson is going to wind up as one of the tacit reasons to advocate deletion. An obvious GNG fail to anyone not GH, and if he wants to continue to promote Carmel following his community block at ANI, he can do so on his own website, and best of luck to him. Ravenswing 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

[edit]


Categories

[edit]

Requested moves

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Transcluded pages

[edit]

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts&oldid=1239595405"