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]

Doyle Owl[edit]

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

No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Education, and Oregon. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Roberto Clemente (Louisville, Kentucky)[edit]

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

Not a notable statue. And I don't know how relevant this is but the location is also not significant to the baseball player who is depicted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Baseball, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a prominent artwork in the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory museum's statue gallery, this statue is only one of two of Clemente on Wikipedia. I'm not understanding why it should be deleted, although it's a stub that could be expanded with text and a photograph the statue depicts one of America's most famous and honored baseball players and humanitarians. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless some actual content can be scraped together in which case it might just merit a merge, either to the man or the museum.TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This subject is reasonably notable per sources provided in the article and its talk page, but the question here really is whether there will ever be enough content to ever stretch this beyond a tiny stub. Coverage of this subject in Legacy of Roberto Clemente or Roberto Clemente should suffice. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I found several local sources covering the unveiling of the statue at the museum, but they all basically say the same thing about a routine ceremony for a routine statue (this museum has seven of them in its gallery) about an extraordinary man. Without further WP:LASTING coverage, I don't think we need an article so say that so-and-so attended this event when Legacy of Roberto Clemente and Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory can cover the museum's exhibits and collection and his various forms of recognition. There are many other local news pieces about the museum's other exhibits, awards, artifacts, and events; this being a statue doesn't mean it can't still be covered in the main articles. The fame of the subject and the number of statues there are of him is not relevant to whether this particular one needs a stand-alone article. (Reywas92) (talk)
- @Reywas92, if it has to be merged, would prefer a merge and redirect to Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory. Clemente has many, many statues of him in hundreds of locations and I don't think - I'm sure you would agree - every statue of Clemente merits a mention in the main articles. There are a few mentioned in the article which are relevant to Clemente's legacy or if he has a personal to the place. The obvious one, of course, is Pittsburgh.

There are hundreds of statues of Roberto Clemente? Where? There is this one in the museum of the Louisville Slugger bat manufacturer and there is one in Pittsburgh. Having articles about these two prominent statues are not overwhelming Wikipedia servers and should be kept. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:EVERYTHING argument "Wikipedia has space for it", not based on policy. I think Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory would be the better merge/redirect target, though Legacy of Roberto Clemente should also mention it. I don't think the statue is even that "prominent", it's just one of seven similar ones inside the museum, with no coverage beyond the museum's unveiling event. Not that any public art is automatically notable, but larger ones outdoors are at least sometimes included in various guides as visible local landmarks or don't always have obvious redirect targets like parts of a museum's exhibits. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca[edit]

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

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf		This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH).	See WP:SELFPUBLISH.	✘ No
https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte	This is the artist's CV.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution			This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist.	✔ Yes
https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158			Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother.	✘ No
https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca	This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/			~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work.	~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193.			Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book.	✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24.			Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview.	✔ Yes
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf			A paragraph mention on the subject and their work.	✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26.			Offline source, accepting in good faith.	✔ Yes
https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536			Very short mention of the subject and one of their works.	✔ Yes
https://www.projectvortex.org/	This is a project with which the artist is associated.		Name doesn't even feature in the source.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/			Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention.	✘ No
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca	This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject.		See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Visual arts. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion mask[edit]

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

Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412 T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [1] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [2] [3] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.

both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.

Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.

In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]