Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand picture

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's a strong consensus that this particular variety of sand art is not notable. A merge to Sand art and play has been discussed, and mentioning sand pictures there remains a possibility, but this should only be done if sufficient reliable sources can be found; as it stands, the article in question is cited chiefly to totally unreliable sources like eBay and Gizmodo. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sand picture[edit]

Sand picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear that this term "sand picture" has a standard usage. There is no clear significance expressed in this article. No peer-reviewed sources are cited. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with what the nominator states, and I would add that the page seems designed to advertise the links in the article, which are all people who offer art in this medium for sale. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

868,383,950edits (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@868,383,950edits: Hello. In order to have an article about this art form, you will need to do more than tell us what it is and post links to where it can be purchased. You will need to cite independent reliable sources that indicate how this is notable, and indicate that this term is in general use. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my problem is this, this type of art is unknown and i can see good links in internet, only people that made sand picture in their own sites explained abut it, but i try to search again and find better links, when you want to delete it? i need more time 868,383,950edits (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I deleted links to shopping pages, and added new links. please check the article.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@868,383,950edits: If this type of art is "unknown" as you state, it will be difficult to have a Wikipedia article about it until it is more well-known. Please review some of the links in my post above for more information. If you need more time to work on it or find appropriate sources that indicate notability, the page can be moved to an area where you can work on it. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean of unknown is this type of art are exist, my grandfather in 50 years ago have one of them but too many of people don't know about it. i created this page to show other people there is this type of art, even in ebay there's instruction to build theme and i added it to ref links and as i said before i deleted links to shopping pages.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although some of the external links may be promotional (I agree that some were), I don't think that this makes the article irredeemable (the links can be removed without affecting the article's content). Also, I have seen these sorts of displays in several science museums, where they are used to model geological strata (and keep kids occupied). For these reasons, I don't think deletion is the best way to fix this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitflyer (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest to fix the article? Just removing the links? Anything else? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

i think when something are exist we can create an article for it, as i said 50 years ago my grandfa had one of them and in early 1980 too many of people decided to make it as their own businesses. also in common someone decided to delete all my photos, i don't know why? please join there too:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_868,383,950edits 868,383,950edits (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, mere existence is not enough for an article, otherwise every human on the planet would get one. The reasons more sources are need have been stated above. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just read this article,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

i mean of exist is about things, not humans.868,383,950edits (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for businesses and art forms. It must be notable to have an article here. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

of course there are art in business, economic is this! but in first is an art and then business, because you buy an paint it's not art?868,383,950edits (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable here -- a collection of abstract art by a completely unknown artist and no evidence that there is actually any significant interest in this kind of work. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many of wikipedia articles have 10 or less daily previews, they are not notable too!868,383,950edits (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean daily views, the number of views is irrelevant to a subject's notability as a Wikipedia article. You don't seem to understand what is being asked for with regards to reliable sources indicating notability. Please review those pages. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder why you won't try expand my article? just deleting!868,383,950edits (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources, no indication of notability. A search for the phrase only gives me commercial links to buy the equipment and some websites for artists in the medium - no secondary coverage that I can find. --bonadea contributions talk 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if the problem is links, we can fix them.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Also please note that usernames cannot be shared. It's not "links" that are the issue, as stated several times above. Have you reviewed the pages I suggested that you review above? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are entire books about these things, including:
  1. The Sand Art Bottles of Andrew Clemens
  2. Sandplay: Past, Present and Future
  3. A Lost Art: Inventory of an Unique Collection of Sand Pictures by "Zobel", Sand Picture Painter to King George III
  4. Sandplay Therapy: Research and Practice
  5. Mandala Sand Art
There seem to be a variety of art forms of this sort and so we need some sort of disambiguation page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I am aware of the page sand art and play (sand art is already a disambiguation). The page creator contends this is a specific art medium, but has no sources to support it other than artists with art for sale. This seems to be different than just sand art; maybe this could be a redirect. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sand art bottles appears to be one specific form of sand art, different from the sand pictures in this article, which are created with two panes of glass. Zobel's sand pictures are discussed in the Sandpainting article. Sandplay therapy (which is also the subject of the book Sandplay: Past, Present and Future) is something entirely different from the subject of this article. Mandala sand art has an article here. So no, those books are not actually references supporting the notability of this article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, i'm mathematics student not artist. i just bought one and my grandfather said i had one 50 years ago and i searched in wiki and saw there's nothing about it, so i decided to create a page. and all thing i found in internet was that 11 reference in article. some of them is from makers personal sites and their shopping sites. now andrew tell there's books about it.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve Redirect and merge to sand art and play Remove the promotional links, tag as a stub, and keep. These things are available on every craft market, and have been around for decades. --Slashme (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slashme: But is there RS about it? There seems to be for the more general category of art with sand, so maybe this could be turned into a redirect, but I haven't found any for this specific form(which is what the author is contending). The author themselves states above that they created the page because this art is "unknown". 331dot (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: It's certainly not new. The patent has lapsed already: US patent 4885192 . --Slashme (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying it was new, the author said it was 'unknown' so they created a page about it. In order to have an article, it needs to be known to some degree, enough to have RS made about it. It doesn't matter if it is old if there are no RS about it to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took a look around, and although there are plenty of guides online on how to make and maintain them, there are no real reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail, so I'm changing my !vote to "redirect and merge". --Slashme (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I did do a search, and did not find many links other than those of artists selling their art; I didn't find what I would consider to be independent reliable sources. If you did, fair enough, but I did check. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot:, yes, I assumed you did look, but perhaps you didn't consider a simple merge? Bearian (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the result, I can live with it, but I don't think it's worth it. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i sent email to William Tabar and sand man, two of authors. please wait for their responds.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what doing so is meant to accomplish. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, please see this again:

@331dot: It's certainly not new. The patent has lapsed already: US patent 4885192. --Slashme

i didn't know it until now! i sent mail to them, please wait for their responds.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic replies: 1 - Hello,

We will are currently out of the studio attending the Las Vegas World Market. We will be returning Friday January 27th. Sorry we missed you. Have a great day! Bill Tabar Exotic Sands, inc.

2-This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed. 

      [email protected]

868,383,950edits (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i sent mail to bazart and eclecticgallery site too, 868,383,950edits (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean WP:COI? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i edited article links, please see it again.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User Isambard Kingdom no, i asked them to join talk and support article by their information.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is canvassing. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In internet we can't find interested thing, i just asked them to improve article and join talk to show their art!868,383,950edits (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is what canvassing is. It is frowned upon to ask uninvolved persons (especially non-Wikipedia users) who you think might be supportive of your position to come here and state they support it. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only growing more convinced that this should just be deleted; the intent here seems to be to promote this art form. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • everyone can join this chat and my work is true because they have more information about this art history, building process and much more information. i didn't asked them to vote or any thing like it, i just asked them to join to show other people their work is a type of art and explain you and other about it. this is wrong?868,383,950edits (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one disputes that this is an art form, so it is unnecessary to ask people here to tell us that it is an art form; the question is whether it is a notable art form. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • wait! i don't want to do anything that wikipedia have looking bad for people seach for knowledge here

!(i'm not native english user and here we don't need english at all. sorry for weak english! ), if this work(my article) is wrong please delete it! i don't know anything about sand picture, only thing i know is that is exist, so i decided to search in wiki for more information but i couldn't saw anything, so i decided to create a page!! 868,383,950edits (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article is not bad or wrong, but you have to be able to support it with reliable sources. If you need time to find reliable sources, the page can be turned into a draft so it is not deleted, but you can still work on it until it is ready. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but you said problem is not source, problem is that this art should be known and notable!
i asked people around, this art age is less than 50 years in world and is one of decorative things that only a few people use it after 50 years.868,383,950edits (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said that "links" are not the issue, but "sources" are. A link is not necessarily a source. For example, the whole reason we are here is that the page was only supported with links to artists who sell art in this art form. That is not an independent reliable source as they have an interest in promoting their art. What we need are news stories that discuss this art form, independent reviews that discuss it, books, anything made by people not directly involved in this art form to indicate that it is notable. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this comment edited! OK, now i understand! i edited article links, please read article again, the firs source is from here that one of users in this talk said. and in ebay (not shopping page, about madding !)and google(the google article referenced by 8 source , look at down of page) i found link that i think they not good but enough, i deleted 6 of links of article include shoping and personal sites, please check them and if they have problem tell here.868,383,950edits (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: even after serious attempts to find sources, it seems that this topic just hasn't been discussed at length in reliable sources, so it definitely fails the GNG. I still think that it is widely enough known that it can warrant an illustration and a paragraph at sand art and play. --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sand_picture&oldid=1078170381"