Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

WP:DSPAINTING

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts/archive

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:

It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

Visual arts[edit]

Dean Karr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article certainly looks impressive, but not one of the sources used is significant coverage from an independent reliable source. IMDB and MVDB are user generated and should not be used at all. Allmusic lists everything, so while it may be ok for verification it doesn't get us anywhere for notability. Websites owned or operated by the subject are possibly ok primary sources but again, no use as far as notability. VideoStatic, I'd never heard of but the coverage there is just crediting this person for their role in various projects, there's no depth of coverage about this person.

My own search didn't turn up anything any better. He certainly seems to be prolific in his industry, but somehow apparently has not been the subject of significant coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working commercial photographer, with a too long list of everything they've ever worked on here... Wiki isn't for your CV. I find nothing covering this individual, not even PR items. There just isn't coverage about them. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used now in the article is primary or simply a name drop... Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (demoparty)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The name of the event makes it more difficult to search. I was only able to find mentions, such as "One of the most traditional and largest events still running today is demoparty X, a specific event for the Commodore 64 platform with the first edition held in 1995 in the Netherlands (POLGáR, 2016)." (machine translated from Portuguese) in a paper about the demoscene in Brazil. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties.

Edit: X is also discussed in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár:

"The great meeting events of the Commodore 64 scene in the second half of the nineties were the great international demoparties: The Party in Denmark, Assembly in Finland, and mainly the German Mekka Symposium and Breakpoint. These parties, in addition to the great annual X parties organized by Success & The Ruling Company. For the first time, in 1995, this party was held in Utrecht, Netherlands but moved several times to different cities. Some still remember X’95 as the best X party, and later X parties as the best parties of C64 scene history. Interestingly enough the X still takes place every year. In 1997 the party united with Takeover, and became a multiplatform party under X-Takeover label but the cool oldschool atmosphere was broken by Amiga and PC users, so the cooperation split up. X is still the largest Commodore-only demoparty."

. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Netherlands. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKA Mr. Chow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely ~~notable~~ reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep): ~~I didn't search and only~~ the sources that the page currently ha(d)s~~, but the~~y seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc ♫^talk 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is broadly a collection of journalists' opinions according to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "No clear evidence or assertion of notability".

I don't think my tone was nasty, and it was sincerely not meant in a nasty way, but I did seriously doubt that you made a BEFORE at all (not questioning your general good faith but the fact that you really spent time checking sources), yes, and I am still surprised that a film with so many reviews was taken to Afd, when you could have just added the reviews that apparently you had seen and read (but that you did not even mention, btw) as GNG, NFILM, etc. are obviously and more than fairly met.

I was not expecting thanks for presenting various sources that you may have seen during that BEFORE but if a film is reviewed in so many extremely reliable sources, your concern did and does not seem justified, nor does this Afd, for that matter, and calling additional sources that you are telling me you saw but failed to simply mention, even in a general statement (like "I have seen reviews in WSJ, Guardian, Decider, etc. during my BEFORE but think they're not enough for notability of a standalone page", "Despite a lot of media coverage found in my BEFORE, my concern is that it is not enough to warrant an article and etc." or smth of the kind), referencing overuse (unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of text to try and absorb, but i'll say I didn't say anything was "nasty", and I do admire your determination. That said, while I remain unconvinced that we should have, or need, a separate article for this (when on the basis of existing content, I feel it would be better suited being mentioned on the subject's article), I respect the consensus view that is to the contrary, so it seems fruitless at this stage to consider anything other than a withdrawal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, plenty of good sources exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullarbor (demoparty)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (including by searching in Trove). Also, the Nullarbor website had a section for media coverage; many of the sources listed there either aren't reliable, don't provide significant coverage, or aren't independent (media/press releases). A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Australia. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually the 2nd AfD, the previous one was in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party). --Mika1h (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, etc. (exhibition)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The article presently only links to fan webpages, with the exception of one brief article in Greek. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, and Greece. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : to the art section of his main article [1], I can't find coverage outside of the links given, already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important Party[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Demoscene#List of demoparties. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. This is such a niche subject that this doesn't make sense as a standalone. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Space Contemporary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources used in the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]