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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Visual arts.
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]

Jerome K. Moore[edit]

Jerome K. Moore (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about an artist working in comics and animation, and added a reference. I cannot find more coverage, however, so do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva[edit]

Corinne Silva (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 sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[1], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[2] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[3], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[4]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [5] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/delete. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote to keep per WP:HEY. I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty "art speak". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to Keep. Thank you@Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A thorough WP:BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG. While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline. I invite WomenArtistUpdates, MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found:
  • Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. "Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33.
  • Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books)
  • Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [6] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [7]
  • In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368,[8] there is this review: [9], this review [10], this interview: [11],
The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates, Financial Times has a really strong paywall~! I can't get back in on Safari even after clearing my cookies. I tried accessing it on Firefox and got it at: [12] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Netherzone. I changed my !vote. Thanks for digging deeper. I could not see beyond poorly written article originally presented. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins[edit]

Conor Collins (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)

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[13] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sort of my thinking as well. Most articles include links back to his social media account, making it a question as to whether he's been truly independently noticed in my book. It's clear he's getting noticed, but this may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice[edit]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice (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)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:
- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here
- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here
- A feature on GPSmyCity - here
- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)
Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{Dolores Huerta}} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art, would qualify. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.--19h00s (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as even though there is a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion. But there is a valid concern about sourcing so hopefully more can be located over the next few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts&oldid=1225921270"