Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to 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, 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|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 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.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive.
Purge page cache watch

Arts

Rebecca Smith (artist)

Rebecca Smith (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rebecca Smith (artist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There is a notable artist called Rebecca Smith [1][2][3], but this article appears to be on someone else. I can't find any indication that this Rebecca Smith meets WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

fails WP:ORG. this has been discussed recently on talk page. Whilst it looks like lots of sources, almost all the sources that I could access do not even mention the society. The article uses WP:SYNTH by padding out the achievements of individual members and using sources not even about the society. The sum total of members achievements does not equate to notability of the society. Michael Kmit for example uses about 10 of the 50 sources. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 19:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 19:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The initial AfD made allowances for the development of the article contingent on WP:RS to establish that the organisation passed WP:N (not simply WP:V). Years down the track, this has not been met. While a couple of artists who are notable were members of the organisation (irrelevant per WP:INHERITORG), the organisation itself fails per WP:ORGCRITE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research promoting the organisation, two things that Wikipedia is not. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Transformation of culture

Transformation of culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Transformation of culture" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This feels like a personal essay and doesn't seem to be getting any better anytime soon. At this point, I think we should just blow it up and start over. I suggest that we delete or possibly stubbify this version, but allow editors to create a new article on this topic. TheDracologist (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect to social change or culture change. This is pretty deep in essay territory, so any merger in a conventional sense wouldn't be much less work than just a de novo expansion of the target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there already is a merge discussion here. Discussion should take place there. --Fixuture (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The linked merge "discussion" has gone eight weeks without a single participant other than the proposer. I suppose that means it could be viewed as uncontroversial at this point, and simply be done by an editor who is so motivated. But it also shouldn't be a procedural bar to a deletion discussion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten about the merge discussion. Thanks for directing me to somewhere that I can attract more attention to it. TheDracologist (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A user who has not participated herein has opposed the merge at Talk:Culture change
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The topic is certainly notable. The article is not very good, and frankly, if somebody wanted to WP:TNT this and start a new one, it wouldn't be bad, but unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch, merge or no merge, this is still a notable topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to social change or culture change. WP:TNT: we don't need overlapping articles covering similar ground. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and, most likely redirect per discussion elsewhere. Notable topic even if quality poor. Montanabw(talk) 16:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to closing this as a no-consensus given that opinions are all over the place. But let's give it another week and hope for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Rebecca Smith (artist)

Rebecca Smith (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rebecca Smith (artist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There is a notable artist called Rebecca Smith [4][5][6], but this article appears to be on someone else. I can't find any indication that this Rebecca Smith meets WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Faux

Faux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Faux" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page, being about a fairly commonplace word, has little room for expansion into a proper encyclopedia article. (Elevated from contested PROD) Ibadibam (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Poketo

Poketo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Poketo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Written like a promotional article. No significance or proof of encyclopedic notability. Light2021 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 00:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 00:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Long

Amanda Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Amanda Long" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Little or no independent coverage that I can see. EEng 02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, meant to say I also checked NARTIST and see zero evidence any of its four points is satisfied. EEng 03:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
If anything, I think it would qualify under GNG. While most of the sources are primary and/or non-RS, the Pittsburgh-Gazette and Washington Post would be sufficient to satisfy notability in and of themselves, if not for the fact that the coverage is just not detailed or significant enough in either. Snow let's rap 04:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The Gazette's "coverage" of the subject reads, in its entirety:
Amanda Long, a video artist from Carnegie Mellon University, created this part of the exhibit. "'Silly Faces' is a video mural," Ms. Long said. "The wall holds 96 videos [at a time] ... My hope is that everyone gets five seconds of stardom."
And the Washington Post:
Another exhibit, called “Strike a Pose,” lets children create self-portraits in the form of five-second videos. Twenty-five of the videos then appear in a square grid projected on a wall in this installation designed by New York-based artist Amanda Long. The activity gets kids to think broadly about portraiture, which can include moving and interactive images as well as traditional oil paintings, Kasemeyer says.
This isn't even close to GNG material. EEng 04:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
That would be more or less exactly what I said. Snow let's rap 21:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I worked my way through the references in the article, they are all either self-published (apparently by the subject of the article) or just mentions in passing and none of which establish notability in general or meet WP:NARTIST in particular. - Nick Thorne talk 04:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No convincing evidence is presented to support notability, and none of the criteria at NARTIST are met. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nick Thorne. I thought this [7] could be of some use but apparently it has problems too (thread at Amanda Long talk). Also, there´s an indication that the subject is annoyed and wants deletion ("I am going to delete it as soon as I can"):[8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, no, this is a pity as she's evidently a serious artist doing something interesting, but as yet there are no decent independent sources to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per WP:NARTIST; 1. the figure is not regarded as an important figure, nor is she widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The figure is known for originating a new concept, however, the significance of said concept is, as yet, null. 3. The figure is not known for creating a significant body of work that has been the primary subject of an independent notable work or multiple independent notable articles or reviews. 4. The figure's work is not a) a significant monument, b) has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, c) does not appear to have won significant critical attention, but, d) has been represented at at least one notable gallery or musuem; National Portrait Gallery (United States), however, this does not satisfy the criteria of is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums as it is not part of the permanent collection, afaict, nor does one notable gallery equal the prerequisite of several. In essence, there is potential for notability in the figure's career, however, they are not notable as of now. I don't feel the need to bother with GNG as the figure is even further removed from meeting any of those requirements then they are from the NARTIST one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

GROUND

GROUND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GROUND" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:NMEDIA RazerTalk 10:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, they created both pages. then tagged the first one GROUND Magazine for speedy deletion, immediately they created the right one, this was a faster way to change article's name following Wikipedia's suggestion. The tag on the current page GROUND seem a bit fishy since one minute after also the author Ismael Ogando who is tagged in GROUND is also marked for deletion very recently, almost a minute after they tagged GROUND, it seems an action with bad intentions, likely happened with the wikicommon images which are placed with consent of the author and were deliberately deleted! also an article from 5 years ago was tagged as irrelevant for the encyclopedia. This is clearly an act of vandals, since the author tagged target is currently alive and at risk of political persecution. Lets not get dramatic and paranoid. But clearly there was a serious intent to damage and erase this author's work, therefore this is an action of #Vandalism.2A06:8781:0:305:254B:4F73:48DA:16C4 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • SPEEDY DELETION as G11, pure promotion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, per Thomas.W's --Discasto (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Meli Melo Limited

Meli Melo Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Meli Melo Limited" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

AfD removed. I am not seeing the claim to notability here – Hong Kong has countless "art jamming" businesses and extracurricular art studios just like this one. Citobun (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not unique enough to separate it from other businesses of its kind, which are also not notable.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 16:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Intimations of Immortality, Audiovisual Work

Intimations of Immortality, Audiovisual Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Intimations of Immortality, Audiovisual Work" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC (closest notability guideline I could find) The analysis of the sources are:

  1. impossible to know what the source is
  2. Self published work by the author
  3. Web site of the compositor
  4. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
  5. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
  6. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
  7. artist's page about his own work
  8. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
  9. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
  10. web site inaccessible impossible to verify the source but the description of the site by themselves is "La Posta Capital is a neighborhood newspaper in the western area of the city of Buenos Aires" so unlikely to be considered a reliable source to prove the notability of the subject.
  11. artist's page about his own work
  12. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject

None of these sources are enough to prove notability for the work. I have carried out a search for sources and have found nothing that helps to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956

Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Contested prod. A list of paintings at the Rijksmuseum is of course important, it is one of the major museums of art, but it is very unclear why the list of paintings in the 1956 catalogue would be worth a separate article. This specific selection of paintings is not especially notable (again: the paintings are notable, the museum is notable, but the paintings on display in one particular year?) Fram (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about the year, but about the group of paintings on show in the post-WWII years in the Rijksmuseum and this is the year of the catalog edition used. I believe the selection of paintings on show during directorships of top museums are notable, especially those selections for which tourist catalogs have been published. This list is representative of the paintings on show during the directorship of D.C. Roell and therefore notable as a historic record of the taste in painting at that time as well as being a record of the attributions and catalog numbers per object (the current catalog numbers were devised in the 1970s). This is data that is referred to in art history publications of the period circa 1930- circa 1975. All catalog numbers have since changed, many attributions, and some paintings have been sold or restituted to heirs of rightful owners. Jane (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So then the article title has been so chosen because it's all from your single catalogue source? We don't title articles in this way, in my experience. I see you've also created 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, based on another "a booklet of illustrations." Surely we're not going to spawn multiple list articles based on different catalogues and booklets. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Shawn, as I said on my talk page, the reason the year is named is because you need to be specific on Wikipedia. The 120 paintings selection is even more notable, precisely because it has reduced a choice number of 1200 down to 10% considered (at that point in time) to be highlights. I believe we should have these lists for all top museums, and not just for paintings, but also all top artefacts that can found in visitor catalogs in general. I am surprised and somewhat confused that a temporary exhibition could be considered more notable than the collection on show in a top museum. The latter are generally well covered in art history sources, including individual pieces in a traveling show, but not nearly as well as collection items are, across the board. Jane (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Like I said on your user page, it is much better to present articles on the collection of museums based on periods and regions, not based on date of display / catalogue, which is not a defining characteristic. A list of Dutch Golden Age paintings at the Rijksmuseum can include the 1956 catalogue number and attribution, and can list those paintings that were in the museum collection at some time but no more. That would be a perfect list (though perhaps this specific example would need to be split further), on a notable subject. The 1956 catalogie though is referenced in many other publications (I presume, I haven't checked, I do see that there were other editions fairly frequently), but is not as such the subject of significant independent attention. In short, I don't think this is the right way to present this information at all, and is not helpful to readers (people would to browse to multiple similar catalogue lists to see the changed attributions and the changes in taste which you want to show with this list, so it defeats its purpose). Fram (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
What you are proposing would be great, but is not always possible. A well-known painting such as The Night Watch can be referred to by name, but less well-known paintings (that may be highly notable for multiple reasons) will often need to be referred to by catalog number and the Rijksmuseum has changed their catalog numbers regularly over the centuries. By creating lists during key periods and listing these numbers, it increases findability. Again, to be clear, all of these paintings are notable enough to have their own articles. Jane (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Repurpose this and 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum into a retitled list that meets our list naming policies, or delete. While I appreciate the work that has gone into these, they would set a truly terrible not-so-good precedent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, or maybe move to Commons I don't think the precedent is too alarming, if only because few people have the patience to produce such lists. But I agree we don't want too many such lists. Still-life paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720 is a somewhat similar article, recreating an exhibition in Amsterdam & Cleveland in 1999/2000. I think the case for that is stronger. We don't have a list of the current catalogue, which would be more useful, if probably a lot longer. This could be expanded to that, with a field for those in the 1956 one. That would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Johnbod, as I stated already on my talkpage, this is not an exhaustive list of all paintings in the collection in 1956, but just the paintings-on-show in 1956. If we published the entire current catalog I think we are at the edge of notability. The current tourist highlights catalog is broader and of many of the old "friends" are in there, but also some gold and silver objects, bust sculptures, etc. I was able to make this list with all of the images, simply because I know they are there. I have been creating these for awhile, and e.g. was going to complete List of artists in the Metropolitan Museum of Art guide with all of the images we now have, but if you are just going to vote to delete these I won't bother. Jane (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • a) Exhibitions (at least major ones) are a different kind of beast, since these are temporary by definition, and often have many more reliable independent sources about the full exhibition. b) Some of these lists are relatively easy to make with Wikidata queries, so the patience needed to produce them has bveen vastly reduced. No objection to a move to Commons if this kind of list / gallery is welcomed there of course. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
      • As I stated on my talkpage, I disagree. Of course museum collections change at a slower rate, but they are also just temporary (see your Leuchtenberg Gallery). Jane (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

MJ Lindo

MJ Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MJ Lindo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Certainly fails WP:ARTIST and possibly WP:BASIC with some initial coverage on several sales of works. Fails WP:BIO. Reads like a personal essay. scope_creep (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable under WP:GNG. References included don't seem to relate to this article's subject. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any non trivial reliable sources on the subject. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Behemoth's World

Behemoth's World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Behemoth's World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article about a painting by Richard Clifton-Dey whose article claims that His most famous work of art may be Behemoth's World without citing any sources. The article itself failed verification. One reference is to a website that only says "An article on the artist can be found at Wikipedia." The other makes no mention of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Richard Clifton-Dey. There's a little discussion of this work but generally in the context of the album. Clifton-Dey's article is currently weak, but he got some media coverage in pre-internet days, as much for his children's books as his fantasy art; there's also coverage in science fiction websites but I'm not going to judge which is a reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaori Yamagata

Kaori Yamagata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kaori Yamagata" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "山像かおり" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable voice actress. JA Wikipedia shows a credits dump. ANN has no notable articles to cover her career, just cast announcements. No major roles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears she was Anna in a Tekken OVA. Is that considered a major role? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Anna is a major character in the franchise, but she's supporting in Tekken: The Motion Picture. But go ahead and count that one as a major role. Any others? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Major role" I suppose refers to WP:NACTOR, #1, but I do not agree that our policy's idea of "role" easily translates to a voice artist. Without reliable sourcing, the GNG is not met: delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - she has dubbed a large number of English-language movies, and actors who commonly do this are among the most recognized actors in their countries of origin. See here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Where are those articles that show she's most recognized? And not just cast listings/announcements, but ones that hail her as significant for dubbing those roles? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Thomas Dismukes

Thomas Dismukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Thomas Dismukes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails GNG. There are scores of architects who fit a similar profile. Atsme📞📧 18:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia does not list every architect who designed a building, and even then, notability is not inherited from what they built unless the architect was awarded a major prize or has multiple, serious articles about their work in mainstream publications for his or her work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jamiatul Falah Mosque

Jamiatul Falah Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jamiatul Falah Mosque" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unreferenced for more than a decade. It probably is the largest mosque in the city, but I see no historical or architectural significance. Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and nine Bangladeshi newspapers, by both names, found routine announcements of various religious observances and two stories about an incident in which a khatib was assaulted and shoes and garbage were thrown at the mosque.[9][10] I don't believe these mentions are sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Bacha Shah Jame Mosque

Bacha Shah Jame Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bacha Shah Jame Mosque" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Has never cited a reliable source (the most recent one was the author's Google+ page, removed by another editor in March 2015). Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers in Bangladesh have found no mentions in reliable sources. Run-of-the-mill mosque like the other 358 in the sub-district. Does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Eaton Hall (Tufts University)

Eaton Hall (Tufts University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eaton Hall (Tufts University)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Another building on another university. Almost solely primary sources. No indication that this particular university structure passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think references provided are quite enough to establish a notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, I'd call it quite frivolous nomination for article, existing from 2006. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    Comment, actually the "article" has been a redirect for the past 7 years. But thanks for the misrepresentation. And I'm not sure which of the trivial mentions or primary sources you think equates to notability. Onel5969 TT me 02:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable with citations given. Smartyllama (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Well written and referenced. As always, room for expansion. But that goes for any article here. Why the piece was nominated for Afd I can understand. The building is not one of the Great Pyramids or the Tower of London, or even here State side Independence Hall. On the other hand, what the nominator may be overlooking is the importance of the building, and to the surrounding area, of Tufts University. I am sure we all agree that Tufts University is a notable entity. As such, it has its own article here. This piece Eaton Hall (Tufts University) could be easily incorporated and redirected to the Tufts page with no questions asked. However, that would contribute to expanding the Tufts University article beyond what is reasonable. As our guidelines state; “…When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page”. And I think that is what happened here. A standalone page that best serves the main article Tufts University. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 19:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Keith J. Allman

Keith J. Allman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Keith J. Allman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Now this one is ridiculously Employee Data/ Profile. They just forgot to attach their Resume. Definitely not worthy of Encyclopedic material. Light2021 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- a bio of an unremarkable executive, cited to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Russell Harrison (inventor)

Russell Harrison (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Russell Harrison (inventor)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Typical spam.Promotional.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 11:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like I A7d this in January. This may be borderline, and might be saved if it gets some work. I'm not sure. It is overall kindof spammy, and it maybe crosses conceptual lines as far as notability goes. So, for example, he doesn't really fall under NPROF, but that doesn't mean that patents aren't something that contribute to notability, even if they may not get wide coverage in the media, and even if they themselves wouldn't be sufficient alone to establish notability without... something else.
Whether "something else" is out there is a little hard to tell. It's a pretty common name. I did find this from The Telegraph. I don't know that anyone is going to question the reliability of the source, and it's pretty much exactly the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for. It's a heckuva lot better than the other Telegraph article currently cited. If there's more, I could probably be pretty easily swayed toward a keep, with an admitted recommendation for a near total rewrite for tone. TimothyJosephWood 12:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable under WP:GNG. References included don't seem to relate to this article's subject. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any non trivial reliable sources on the subject. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Bandung

List of tallest buildings in Bandung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of tallest buildings in Bandung" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Prod removed by page creator without comment. My concern was Buildings simply not tall enough to make this a notable list Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Probable delete It's not really the height that matters, it's the notability. There's lots of articles online and published about tall buildings in London or Doha, to take 2 examples, but not much about Bandung; the article is largely cited to a database of construction projects. Almost none of the buildings have Wikipedia articles, so it couldn't even function as an index/list of notable buildings in Bandung. I realise there may be sources in Indonesian, Sundanese, Javan, or other local languages, and that we need to improve Wikipedia coverage of non-western nations. But it doesn't appear to be a notable topic for a list. I'm happy to be proved wrong with references and citations. Any referenced content could be merged to Bandung, but there's a lot of unreferenced entries. Could redirect either to Bandung or List of tallest buildings in Indonesia (which includes a lot of notable buildings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, got to agree with Colapeninsula with regards to notability. None of the buildings are notable and the only sources that are provided to affirm height are primary sources, no indication of importance of the list article in general nor any of the entries. Ajf773 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also nominating this list of non notable buildings
List of tallest buildings in Medan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I hate the constant drip, drip, drip of AFDs about individual tall buildings and about lists of tallest buildings. This process of considering, and sometimes deleting, isolated buildings or lists seems guaranteed to ensure uneven coverage in Wikipedia and legitimate frustration on the part of contributors. I particularly hate the deletion of lists, because having lists helps by heading off creation of separate articles about buildings. There needs to be a good RFC or other discussion about the big topic area, towards ensuring consistent editing. --doncram 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Bandung's metropolitan area has population over 8 million, bigger than that of most cities in the U.S. and U.K. (where most AFD editors probably hail from). The list has multiple buildings over 100 metres (330 ft) which is a significant threshold. It is pointless and wasteful to delete list-articles like this. The topic of "tallest buildings in ..." is well-established as notable. One could quibble you want to merge this into List of tallest buildings in Indonesia but that is not proposed and that would not be an improvement, as there is enough separate info about Bandung alone. It is clearly better to have a list-article than separate articles about each of the buildings. There is no controversial or contested information in the article, so I do not see any problems with the sourcing, either. Does anyone seriously dispute whether building X is 128 meters tall or whatever? --doncram 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Selective merge to Bandung - I'm not seeing much, if any, coverage about buildings in Bandung specifically. However a short section on Bandung's article probably wouldn't hurt (as long as it isn't given too much undue weight), and would probably be a better alternative to complete deletion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Gbawden, whats your point? It seems you are suffering from obsessive Deleting disorder! I am creating a page and you are adding in AFD, one by one! Look at the list of tallest buildings in some western cities like List of tallest buildings in Cardiff, then compare how your views justify discriminating cities from other parts of the world. Dont forget Indonesia is the 7th largest ecnomy of the world. Both Bandung and Medan is large metropolis with huge numbers of colonial buildings and high economic activity. They deserve to be included in the list. The list of tallest buildings are not about heritage, its about height! That's why it has the word tallest!
  • Bandung is the 2nd most populous city in Indonesia. It has many high rise building already. The city is going through transforming its skyline for last few years. Most of the high rise were built after 2014, as there was height restriction in the city. It needs time and patience to create a new page.There is a page in Bahasa Indonesian 'https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_gedung_tertinggi_di_Bandung'. But in my opinion, the topic needs a page in English. Thnx.

Judging importance of Bandung as an expanding metropolis where high rise buildings are flourishing rapidly, this page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.151.1 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • .Keep, as there are plenty of reference and Bandung is an important cultural, educational & economic hub in Southeast Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.167.150 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    • IP's 114.124.167.150 and 114.124.151.1 have made very little contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD. Suspect these are IP hopping by the article creator and both comments should be discarded. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days for the second article added later and new comments on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This AFD is about "List of tallest buildings in Bandung" and there is no "second article". Upon close examination, I do see a later comment within the discussion suggesting another article for deletion. It is not hidden but also it clearly seems not part of this AFD, by my reading of the nomination and looking at the AFD as a whole. There's no amendment of the AFD statement at the top. No one noticed it and no one has commented. Okay, here is my comment: ignore that, please, and let this AFD be about just what it appears to be about. --doncram 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The second article AfD needs to be withdrawn by the nominator if we go down that path. I see that the AfD template has been removed from the articles author, I've replaced for now. Ajf773 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cascade Center

Cascade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cascade Center" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Sources largely have nothing to do with the center itself. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. It is not a hoax but does not rise to being worth an article. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Building is not notable for its modern use, but clearly is historically significant as the first Warner Bros theater. It was easy to find sources, such as [11], [12], and [13] - not a very thorough WP:Before. It is mentioned in Warner Bros (as the first theater), which I have now linked. I'm surprised this isn't on the NHRP. The article needs better sourcing and cleanup, not deletion. MB 05:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @MB: Those sources are about the theater, not the shopping center on its site. The theater is very likely notable, but the article barely mentions the theater. I would not be opposed to an article on the theater. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The theater has been recreated as part of the complex on the same site. I don't see a reason for a different article. The current complex is the modern evolution of the historic theater. Source #1 and #3 focus on the theater. Source #2 does not. I was picking sources about the theater to emphasize the historic nature, but there are other sources like #2 about the whole complex. Anyway, the two are inter-twined and I think this article should be kept. Adding more info on the theater would certainly be an improvement. I agree that without the theater/history, this would be a [wp:mill] shopping center. The article should simply be expanded. MB 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The tail is trying to wag the dog. The theater is clearly notable (I might create that article myself), but the center can't inherit notability from it. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not a big fan of relisting AfDs more than twice but I think we may be inching towards a consensus here. Let's see what happens.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts&oldid=787963081"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Arts
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA