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.

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:

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]

Conor Collins[edit]

(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,[1] 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]

Teodoro Vidal[edit]

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

I could not find out if this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Puerto Rico. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teodoro Vidal and his collection of art has been covered by many sources ranging from academic and journalistic backgrounds. There are three academic articles cited on the page, one journalistic, as well as various shorter pieces from sources like the Smithsonian American Art Museum. An argument could be made that Vidal is understudied, especially in English, but the range of sources covering his impact on the cultural heritage of Puerto Rico and his impact on a major American museum should establish sufficient notability. Coffeycp (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes artist notability with the Smithsonian collection [2], and is featured in this book [3]. Many peer-reviewed articles about him in Gscholar as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, easily passes GNG and has many reputable sources. And per Oaktree. Maybe not only do a "before" but a "present" as well. Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 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]

Food For Thought (artwork)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. I'd redirect this to the perp's page, but there is not anything about this work there. Searches throw up zip. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find one possible mention of this art piece in a G-Book but it isn't previewed. I also checked the magazines available online from the library, figuring there might be info in art magazines and journals, but nothing. I looked at the artist's article and I admit I also have doubts that they meet notability requirements. Lamona (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wanås is the leading international sculpture park [4] - any art piece exhibited there deserves a mention. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a more apt citation for that? That is a travel/promotional magazine, not an art magazine. Also, that article does not mention this work of art. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some more links rectifying Wanås Sculpture Park as, atleast, internationally reknowned [5], [6],[7]. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you can't use the same notability reference to an artpiece almost 30-years-old but I've done what I could providing proof of this artwork's legacy albeit its growing age. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you have provided fit with the Wikipedia definition of reliable source and none mention this sculpture. I don't think this helps. Lamona (talk) 15:28, 16 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!} 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Having something in this sculpture park might help in establishing the notability of an artist with a work there but does not establish the notability of the work.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reception to ascertain standalone notability at the moment. I checked the Swedish Mediearkivet, where a two-sentence mention in Expressen came up. "Tydligast blir det kanske i Matthew McCaslins Food for thought, där en videofilmad pastoral idyll har fått sig tillsatt gödselessens i form av halmbalar - utan att det riktigt framgår om det är de betande korna eller deras medialisering som är "poängen", för att säga det på skånska. En poäng i sig, skulle det säkert kunna hävdas - men den förefaller mig i så fall ganska trivial". This is something, although certainly not in-depth. Food For Thought is mentioned at Wanås Castle#Selection of the outdoors exhibitions which shows that almost none of the artworks have their own pages; by the way I don't trust the notion that Wanås is "the leading international sculpture park" either. Geschichte (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]