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

Jessica Silverman Gallery

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

I don't see how this comes near to meeting WP:CORP. The gallery does what all art galleries do – have shows, try to sell works of art, promote themselves and sometimes the artists, etc. The article was created by a user named Jsginfo, and appears to have been an attempt at promotion from the day it was started. We don't allow promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 00:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (although consider moving to Jessica Silverman). She and her gallery are widely covered in the art press and somewhat in Bay Area media. I added various sources. The content was not in the slightest bit promotional, so that cannot be a reason for deletion. It comes down purely to notability. With coverage in various publications, she passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a promotional entry; the Jessica Gallery is now established in the Bay Area and the entry is sufficiently referenced User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nils Ohlsen

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

This page does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies, and does not cite any reliable references for its information. My online searches have revealed no new sources or information that would resolve these issues. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I tried to tackle this as I felt he must be notable, but I can't uncover sources that cover him with more than a passing mention. There's a lot of "noise" around the Munch exhibit of which he was co curator, but no depth. StarM 01:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Palisades Media Arts Academy

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

Organization has shut down. Was local in nature, only had 30 students, not notable https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/07/02/janefinch_palisades_music_program_closes_amid_union_battle.html Rogermx (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete the only source in the article is a dead link, but much of the content appears to be a copyvio from this website Mduvekot (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Brian Pankey

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

The records website RecordSetter.com lacks credibility since there is no oversight or check of the records submitted to it - see this discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It follows that a person whose only claim to notability is that he has a large number of records listed on that website does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria - and Wikipedia should not make the claim that he "holds 2,400 records", since the only thing that's known is that he has submitted 2,400 records to RecordSetter.com. I have found this Huff Post source mentioning him, but that's not significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Swift Delete not notable. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete It is truly wonderful (and a bit disturbing) that someone is trying to set a record for "Most bites taken from three apples whilst juggling", but Pankey's claim doesn't appear to hold up. The word record seems to belong to a Michael Goudeau. Fortunately, these antics have attracted no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so Wikipedia can be spared an article about these trivialities. Mduvekot (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence of notability. BTW, I just marked all the dead links in the article. Guess what remained: his YouTube channel. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with the above assessments. Additionally, the only thing I can find that is close to being notable is his appearance on "Stupid Human Tricks" on the old Letterman show and being briefly seen on America's Got Talent. While he is mentioned in an article on | Juggle.org, he is not the focus, merely mentioned in passing. Ceronomus (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I found some sources that provide coverage about the subject. The first one listed below provides significant coverage, the second provides 2 paragraphs, and there's also some short articles about the subject. North America1000 03:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any evaluation of the sources found by Northamerica1000?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear notable (at this time). Simply not enough here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Markus Winter

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

Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that his gallery might be notable, but apart from the New York Times reference in the article (which is only a passing mention of him and is actually more about his gallery than himself), the references in the article are mostly about what's in his gallery rather than him specifically, or press releases. I couldn't find enough significant coverage actually about him. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator; there is nothing substantial about the subject. What he sells may be notable, but he hasn't received significant critical attention himself. Mduvekot (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
3 articles in Die Welt and 2 NYTs that discuss him and his work should be considered sufficient for GNG, no? Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The NYT pieces are not substantially about him, though. One sentence in [1]: "Markus Winter, the gallery’s owner, said that only a few of the show’s pieces have a clear provenance trail." [2]] quotes him and has "Marcus Winter, who organized the show with Brian Kish of the Brian Kish Gallery on Greene Street in SoHo, said it was the first about the architect in America." and "It took Mr. Winter almost two years to put the show together." Mduvekot (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the 2004 NYT mentions him in several places. Importantly, it acknowledges i.e. notes him as an art historian ("Mr. Winter, an art historian from Düsseldorf, Germany") and it frames him as an authority by reporting his assessment on a historical matter ("'Ulrich was one of the last modern designers who cared about craftsmanship,' Mr. Winter said."). The 2 Die Welt articles have even more detail. Taken as a whole, these sources frame Winter as a recognized authority in this area of art history. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
There is probably a legitimate case to be made that most of the claims in the article can be verified with as few as two or three of the sources. There is one piece in particular from Die Welt that has some biographical info that is not completely peripheral: this. For me, it's a bit too thin, considering the promotional tone of the sources by Andrea Hilgenstock (all the Zeit articles are by her), the lack of any support for Winter's status as an expert by real scholars in a relevant field in stead of newspaper editors, and the sudden appearance of User:Bennyflower whose very first contribution to Wikipedia was this !vote and User:Leonachtlicht, whose second edit to Wikipedia was to contest the speedy deletion nomination. There's something wrong with this article. It stretches my inclination to believe that all contributors to the article and this discussion are here to contribute in good faith without a conflict of interest beyond its limits. Of course, I'd be happy to revert my assertion if a satisfactory explanation for their sudden involvement can be provided by the two editors I mentioned. Mduvekot (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no question of the SPA-nature of those 2 accts – I even tagged one of them as such. However, the salient debate is not about them, but about Winter. And, I also agree that there's no scholarly proof that he's an expert, but his opinion/work/gallery has undeniably appeared in Germany's main national daily...and, to me, this seems to be a textbook case of what we mean by GNG. I am the first to admit that GNG is blatantly and widely misused nowadays to shoehorn into WP local arts people having no relevance beyond their own town, but I don't think we'd be guilty of that here with material from NYT & Die Welt. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep His publications are referred to by all four major auction houses dealing in design: Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips and Wright. His exhibitions are well reviewed not only by the New York Time but the Neue Zuericher Zeitung, Die Welt, Architectural Digest, Elle Decor and Vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonachtlicht (talkcontribs)
  • Delete This seems like a promotional piece. Agree per nominator that subject is not non-notable. Netherzone (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As a german design historian Markus Winter is of course a prominent person. He is one a few world wide leading experts in the field of pioneering design in the early 1900 to 1930ies in Germany and has made signifikant contributions to the relation and the worth of this design decade beside the German Bauhaus.He is currently working on the first documentation about that field and does a groundbreaking work for the understanding of the creative cultural forces in early 20th century Germany. It is not only an important part of design history, it is also a new view in cultural history and will alter the common view about how we looking to that very special period. So I prefer to hold the wikipedia source and think it also will be enhanced soon. NOT to be deleted! Bennyflower (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Bennyflower (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete This is a promotional article that tried to fluff up a non-notable curator/historian/antiques dealer who has had a few passing mentions in good pubs. There simply isn't much there when you start scratching the surface, i.e. GNG is not satisfied for WP:Academic or any other criteria really. I had a closer look at the sources while converting four or five improper inline URLS to refs-- there is not much meat on these bones. Bennyflower and Leonachtlicht, the two keep votes, appear to be likely SPA's as well.198.58.162.149 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extensive piece in Die Welt and 2 NYT articles that discuss him and his work/gallery are enough for GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree that the keep !votes are not based on any actual Wikipedia policies (although I think SPA might be a bit far), and that although there has been much mention of the NYT articles, they only discuss Winter in the context of his gallery / exhibitions. They are not about he himself. Thus they are great sources for his gallery, etc., but poor for the individual. I cannot find sufficient independent third-party reliable sources to indicate depth or persistence of coverage at this time: [3] (blogs and zines, excluding the passing mentions). Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
Comment. WP:NOTINHERITED is usually interpreted to mean that a person isn't notable just because a relative is notable. It can also mean that some facet of a person's work isn't notable just because the person is notable. However, you're arguing the reverse here, that Winter isn't notable, even though his work has been widely noted. A person is notable if they've done notable work. And, for the record, the 2 NYTs do discuss his work, the Die Welt article discusses him and his work in detail, and there are at least 2 other Die Welt articles in the bib that discuss him and his work. You have to go through some pretty good mental gymnastics to argue that this sort of sourcing does not satisfy GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
It's also frequently used to argue against keeping articles of people who have merely collaborated with famous people without any in-depth coverage of their own work. In this case, that Markus Winter curated exhibitions with works from famous articles is not ipso facto proof of his notability. The fact that news organizations reported more on the famous artworks in the exhibitions and much less (if any) about Markus Winter's role, would militate against finding Winter notable in this case. Even if we accept that a curator is a creative professional and exhibitions are their works, it's unclear how Markus Winter would meet WP:CREATIVE without making every single curator who managed to successfully assemble an exhibition by notable artists themselves notable. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm not arguing his notability from a technical perspective. I'm pointing out the fact that several of the world's main news outlets, like NYT and Die Welt, have covered him, his work, his gallery, etc. on multiple occasions. This phenomenon, to have been noted, is indeed the crux of passing GNG. It's really that simple. You're arguing up a different tree, saying a book he wrote is not widely held and such. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Cheers. Agricola44 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not convinced that the available sources demonstrate that Winter meets our notability guidelines. Also, using WorldCat, I was unable to find the first listed book, but the second one is held by three institutions [4], one of which, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, literally holds every modern German book published. The only other book I found in WorldCat was held four times. This does not seem like the output of notable art historian.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as neither the subject nor his work meet notability criteria. Ifnord (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has developed pretty far beyond just making assertions. I still can't see any convincing justification that multiple articles in 2 national dailies do not satisfy GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture by architects such as Oskar Kaufmann, Fritz August Breuhaus and Leo Nachtlicht.Kidflave1 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Kidflave1 After your unsourced contribution to Markus Winter, your keep vote is your second contribution to Wikipedia. I have to wonder; how do you know that Winter "is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture". That doesn't appear in any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

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

No evidence that this individual object is notable - sources provided are from the museum which holds it. Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world. PROD was contested by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museum. PamD 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

i agree we need a high bar for notibility on costume items in museums, but I believe this item may qualify if the article is expanded. Can you give me a few days to collect some research? - PKM (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
AfD discussion normally lasts at least a week. I can see the argument that a museum object can be notable in the same way as an individual painting in a gallery - but as you say there needs to be quite a high bar so that we don't get every museum catalogue dumped into the encyclopedia. Good luck in finding some independent sources to support this garment's notability. PamD 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I de-PROD'ed to allow a chance for discussion and further development, which seems to me appropriate. I don't think that we should have articles on every object in a museum collection, but this one does have a fair amount of scholarly WP:RS published on it, way beyond an entry in a museum catalogue. I'm not sure of what the answer ultimately should be, but I do think it's worth considering it as an art object, either by itself, or as part of a slightly broader cultural topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Janet Hudson Schroeder

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Unable to locate significant, independent coverage despite winning of awards. She won 8th place at a WPJA contest in 2007-- just a captioned photo for coverage. Only sources in article are subject's web pages. WP:Gale search through my library was unavailing. Was DeProDed by article creator. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • delete zero coverage. I could only find coverage for a namesake who is the Toledo city spokesperson. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Haruichi Furudate

Haruichi Furudate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Haruichi Furudate" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "古舘春一" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Manga artist only known for the Haikyu series. As shown in the opening paragraph, manga artist has never attended any event, so notability independent of the series is difficult to assess. Recommend direct to Haikyu. JA Wikipedia shows some interviews but most are in the context of Haikyu. But this can be reviewed to see if that has enough for Furudate's notability. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Naoki Serizawa

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

Manga artist known mainly for Saru Lock (22 volumes), has some manga titles for Resident Evil (Biohazard/heavenly island) and Resident Evil: The Marhawa Desire, but is that enough to keep around? I looked at Resident_Evil#Comics but do not see it listed. Has been tagged for notability since 2011, and outside of Resident Evil, not much improvement on the article. JA Wikipedia isn't promising either, barely a stub there with just a short list of works. MADB isn't showing anything for his anime either, so it must be all manga artist stuff. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I have a vague feeling that deletion may be the wiser choice in this case, but after considerable reflection I can't come up with any defensible reason why. The only concern I can put forth is that Saru Lock may not be the most appropriate redirect target, but if so then it's easy enough for someone to change it later.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Markus Winter

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

Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that his gallery might be notable, but apart from the New York Times reference in the article (which is only a passing mention of him and is actually more about his gallery than himself), the references in the article are mostly about what's in his gallery rather than him specifically, or press releases. I couldn't find enough significant coverage actually about him. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator; there is nothing substantial about the subject. What he sells may be notable, but he hasn't received significant critical attention himself. Mduvekot (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
3 articles in Die Welt and 2 NYTs that discuss him and his work should be considered sufficient for GNG, no? Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The NYT pieces are not substantially about him, though. One sentence in [5]: "Markus Winter, the gallery’s owner, said that only a few of the show’s pieces have a clear provenance trail." [6]] quotes him and has "Marcus Winter, who organized the show with Brian Kish of the Brian Kish Gallery on Greene Street in SoHo, said it was the first about the architect in America." and "It took Mr. Winter almost two years to put the show together." Mduvekot (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the 2004 NYT mentions him in several places. Importantly, it acknowledges i.e. notes him as an art historian ("Mr. Winter, an art historian from Düsseldorf, Germany") and it frames him as an authority by reporting his assessment on a historical matter ("'Ulrich was one of the last modern designers who cared about craftsmanship,' Mr. Winter said."). The 2 Die Welt articles have even more detail. Taken as a whole, these sources frame Winter as a recognized authority in this area of art history. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
There is probably a legitimate case to be made that most of the claims in the article can be verified with as few as two or three of the sources. There is one piece in particular from Die Welt that has some biographical info that is not completely peripheral: this. For me, it's a bit too thin, considering the promotional tone of the sources by Andrea Hilgenstock (all the Zeit articles are by her), the lack of any support for Winter's status as an expert by real scholars in a relevant field in stead of newspaper editors, and the sudden appearance of User:Bennyflower whose very first contribution to Wikipedia was this !vote and User:Leonachtlicht, whose second edit to Wikipedia was to contest the speedy deletion nomination. There's something wrong with this article. It stretches my inclination to believe that all contributors to the article and this discussion are here to contribute in good faith without a conflict of interest beyond its limits. Of course, I'd be happy to revert my assertion if a satisfactory explanation for their sudden involvement can be provided by the two editors I mentioned. Mduvekot (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no question of the SPA-nature of those 2 accts – I even tagged one of them as such. However, the salient debate is not about them, but about Winter. And, I also agree that there's no scholarly proof that he's an expert, but his opinion/work/gallery has undeniably appeared in Germany's main national daily...and, to me, this seems to be a textbook case of what we mean by GNG. I am the first to admit that GNG is blatantly and widely misused nowadays to shoehorn into WP local arts people having no relevance beyond their own town, but I don't think we'd be guilty of that here with material from NYT & Die Welt. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep His publications are referred to by all four major auction houses dealing in design: Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips and Wright. His exhibitions are well reviewed not only by the New York Time but the Neue Zuericher Zeitung, Die Welt, Architectural Digest, Elle Decor and Vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonachtlicht (talkcontribs)
  • Delete This seems like a promotional piece. Agree per nominator that subject is not non-notable. Netherzone (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As a german design historian Markus Winter is of course a prominent person. He is one a few world wide leading experts in the field of pioneering design in the early 1900 to 1930ies in Germany and has made signifikant contributions to the relation and the worth of this design decade beside the German Bauhaus.He is currently working on the first documentation about that field and does a groundbreaking work for the understanding of the creative cultural forces in early 20th century Germany. It is not only an important part of design history, it is also a new view in cultural history and will alter the common view about how we looking to that very special period. So I prefer to hold the wikipedia source and think it also will be enhanced soon. NOT to be deleted! Bennyflower (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Bennyflower (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete This is a promotional article that tried to fluff up a non-notable curator/historian/antiques dealer who has had a few passing mentions in good pubs. There simply isn't much there when you start scratching the surface, i.e. GNG is not satisfied for WP:Academic or any other criteria really. I had a closer look at the sources while converting four or five improper inline URLS to refs-- there is not much meat on these bones. Bennyflower and Leonachtlicht, the two keep votes, appear to be likely SPA's as well.198.58.162.149 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extensive piece in Die Welt and 2 NYT articles that discuss him and his work/gallery are enough for GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree that the keep !votes are not based on any actual Wikipedia policies (although I think SPA might be a bit far), and that although there has been much mention of the NYT articles, they only discuss Winter in the context of his gallery / exhibitions. They are not about he himself. Thus they are great sources for his gallery, etc., but poor for the individual. I cannot find sufficient independent third-party reliable sources to indicate depth or persistence of coverage at this time: [7] (blogs and zines, excluding the passing mentions). Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
Comment. WP:NOTINHERITED is usually interpreted to mean that a person isn't notable just because a relative is notable. It can also mean that some facet of a person's work isn't notable just because the person is notable. However, you're arguing the reverse here, that Winter isn't notable, even though his work has been widely noted. A person is notable if they've done notable work. And, for the record, the 2 NYTs do discuss his work, the Die Welt article discusses him and his work in detail, and there are at least 2 other Die Welt articles in the bib that discuss him and his work. You have to go through some pretty good mental gymnastics to argue that this sort of sourcing does not satisfy GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).
It's also frequently used to argue against keeping articles of people who have merely collaborated with famous people without any in-depth coverage of their own work. In this case, that Markus Winter curated exhibitions with works from famous articles is not ipso facto proof of his notability. The fact that news organizations reported more on the famous artworks in the exhibitions and much less (if any) about Markus Winter's role, would militate against finding Winter notable in this case. Even if we accept that a curator is a creative professional and exhibitions are their works, it's unclear how Markus Winter would meet WP:CREATIVE without making every single curator who managed to successfully assemble an exhibition by notable artists themselves notable. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm not arguing his notability from a technical perspective. I'm pointing out the fact that several of the world's main news outlets, like NYT and Die Welt, have covered him, his work, his gallery, etc. on multiple occasions. This phenomenon, to have been noted, is indeed the crux of passing GNG. It's really that simple. You're arguing up a different tree, saying a book he wrote is not widely held and such. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Cheers. Agricola44 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not convinced that the available sources demonstrate that Winter meets our notability guidelines. Also, using WorldCat, I was unable to find the first listed book, but the second one is held by three institutions [8], one of which, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, literally holds every modern German book published. The only other book I found in WorldCat was held four times. This does not seem like the output of notable art historian.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as neither the subject nor his work meet notability criteria. Ifnord (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has developed pretty far beyond just making assertions. I still can't see any convincing justification that multiple articles in 2 national dailies do not satisfy GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture by architects such as Oskar Kaufmann, Fritz August Breuhaus and Leo Nachtlicht.Kidflave1 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Kidflave1 After your unsourced contribution to Markus Winter, your keep vote is your second contribution to Wikipedia. I have to wonder; how do you know that Winter "is the only source with significant stock of German expressionist furniture". That doesn't appear in any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

St. Mary's Church, Gulmarg

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

PROD removed a few days ago. Couldn't find much on external references other than some passing glances in tourist guides. Not a part of List of Monuments of National Importance in Jammu and Kashmir or List of State Protected Monuments in Jammu and Kashmir or any other list of notable places I can find. Fails GNG and MAPOUTCOMES. South Nashua (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete Having found a few more references and images online, this might have been a 'very weak keep'. However, I also found there is already a section on St Mary's Church in the article on Gulmarg itself, so I've now expanded that section, and see no reason for the church having an article of its own as it really isn't sufficiently notable, despite being an unusual building in an unusual location. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's now anything left to merge - it's all been put into the Gulmarg article, so I'd still propose deletion which would result in no net loss of wikipedia content. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to REdirect for reasons above. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect, based on what's been explained here. --doncram 23:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect - not enough in article to salvage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Qaqortoq Hostel

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

fails WP:GNG. found no significant coverage LibStar (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Hotels are generally not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Chateau de monterminod

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 21:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See fr:Roussette de Monterminod. This is likely notable. But should the article be about the castle, the wine or the vineyard? Srnec (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Casa Condominio Residenza

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

Fails WP:GNG. Due diligence: Talk:Casa_Condominio_Residenza#research_for_notability --David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Content (size of building) and photograph in article suffices to establish it is a major thing, and in my opinion it is useful for many readers to have coverage over such a thing which affects so many lives. It's like this is a geographic feature, i don't care that it is manmade, you can easily see it from my spacecraft where i am trapped with my computer stuck limiting me to a text interface where all i can do is edit in Wikipedia. This is just shorter than the current threshold to be included as an item in the List of tallest buildings in Toronto article, i guess, otherwise redirecting to a row in the list-article could be an alternative to deletion. So just keep. --doncram 02:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please show me any standard for notability that has to do with size based on a photograph, that requires no WP:RS, not even WP:RS to establish the size you claim the photograph proves. How can you claim "it affects so many lives"? Do you have WP:RS for that? Why would it need to be in a list article if it is not notable? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The content on size of building I meant was the information in the article that the building has 46 floors and is 138 m (453 ft) tall. While the photo does also contribute to understanding that it is a significant feature, there is no question whether or not this is large. As pointed out by another editor on the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burano (building), another Toronto tall building, a major structure like this is also significant as a populated place - it has the equivalent population of a small town. --doncram 15:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Number of inhabitants does not establish notability. This building as only 440 units. A Boeing 747 can carry up to 600 passengers. Does that mean every 747 and perhaps every flight of a 747 is notable? Compare that with the smallest towns in a various U.S. states: Coolville, Ohio; Bombay_Beach, California; or Luckenbach, Texas. These small towns have history and character and hence WP:RS to make them notable. The inside of this 440 unit building most likely has the character of a non place ([9] [10]) with no history or anything notable worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. But if there is WP:RS about the building or some important event that took place there, etc., I will certainly reconsider, but I am not buying the argument that size and population make something notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In an AFD initiated over a nautical vessel someone made a similar argument to your 747 argument, comparing ships with modern military aircraft. They pointed out that modern military aircraft can cost more than freighters, tankers, even cruise ships, yet we don't have articles about each B52 or sr71.

    The reason we have articles on ships, even small ships, that only cost a few million bucks, when we don't have articles on (most) F35s, 747s, or B52s, is that 747s and B52s are essentially interchangable. A military pilot, whose plane is shot down, can hop into a replacement plane, and trust it will behave just like his original. Further planes fly in squadrons of identical planes, that all get assigned the same mission.

    There is of course a pair of 747s that do have their own article - the 747s that US Presidents use. That pair of 747s do have a standalone article.

    In the old Soviet Bloc there were huge housing estates, each identical to one another. Lots of buildings, are "one-offs", more like ships that 747s.

    Well, maybe the differences are all trivial? Sometimes they will be.

    So long as we are going to compare articles, across article type, what about highways, canals, nuclear plants? You may be suggesting that infrastructure, like ships, canals, highways, airports, can't be notable unless there has been a disaster, or something else that could be considered a notable event, happened there. Is that part of what you are trying to say? Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason we have articles on ships, even small ships, that only cost a few million bucks, when we don't have articles on (most) F35s, 747s, or B52s, is that 747s and B52s are essentially interchangable. Exactly. The long list of Template:Toronto_skyscrapers are mostly interchangeable and unnotable, being effectively non places as I said before. The exception is for buildings that have high quality independent WP:SECONDARY coverage that is not promotional. This article purported to be WP:RS for one of these buildings shows just how interchangeable these unnotable buildings are, making my argument for me. It might as well be a list on craigslist of available apartment rentals (e.g. [11]), where the only thing that distinguishes them is price, floor space, whether pets are allowed, etc. Do you consider that to be WP:RS of establishing notability too?
I'm not going to comment on the notability standards for infrastructure, which I have not encountered. If you want to do the research and show me what you have found, be my guest. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • WRT this idea you seem to want to rely on, the "non place" ... Did you explain your thinking on this idea more fully on some other page? Can you point to an actual wikidocument that discusses this idea?

    I just clicked on it, and was very surprised you were directing me to a wikipedia article, not a wikidocument.

    So I looked at the bare-url links you put next your other link to non place. The first one seems to be a generic mystery novel, at least from the first page and a half, that happened to have a chapter heading "non places". Unless you tell us how this book is relevant to this discussion I hope it is okay with you if I don't bother reading more than the first page and a half.

    Your second link is to an abstract. It is an abstract of an article from the Journal of Urban Design. Did you, David Tornheim, actually read the original article, yourself? It seems to me, from the abstract, that the Journal published a philosophical op-ed kind of article, which, if you and I actually hunted it down, we would find would undermine the point you are trying to make, not support it, at all.

    Frankly I don't think offering these links, implying that others should follow them, to understand you more fully, was a good use of anyone's time, my time, your time, anyone's time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave the wiki link to non place and the two others external links so you could understand what I meant when I used the term "non place". I suggest you read the first paragraph of non place. The first external link is to the book by Marc Augé in which he coined the term. That book is mentioned in the first paragraph, third sentence of non place. The cover page of the book, which shows up if you scroll to the very beginning of the PDF shows the image of people in a typical airport (that could be anywhere the world) giving a very good idea of what he means by a non place. I agree the early text looks like a novel, but it is just a very short story that used to introduce examples (like the airport picture) of what it is like to live in a bunch of non-places like the airport, the airplane, the ATM machine, chain stores, etc. It is a non-fiction book to talk about the concept and critical theory of non-places, which is directly related to architecture, such as the many buildings being constructed in downtown Toronto. I have it on my shelf because as I am very interested in architecture and what differentiates good work that that stimulates vitality and community from work that alienates humans from each other. The second link is to show that the term is relevant to architecture and urban design, being mentioned in a scholarly journal. I am amused that you assume that an article that takes seriously the concept of non place will somehow show that a building that looks like a hotel (which Augé identifies as a kind of non-place) is something other than a non-place. Well. I hope this makes more sense. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- as I wrote at another AFD nominator initiated, my own web search confirmed for me there that the due diligence they claimed they made fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: So we are supposed to just trust that there is high quality WP:RS out there that establishes notability that you found and if anyone asks about the source of notability, we'll just say, "Well, Geo Swan says it is notable and he found some RS, so therefore it must be notable."? Seriously? If you have WP:RS establishing notability, let's see it. Better yet, put it in the article too and then we can end this charade. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The AI named Hal in my spaceship just chirped "Geo Swan" is right, and Hal promised to add to the article eventually, after he finsihes melting some asteroids. --doncram 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This building may be more notable in combination with the neighboring, related CASA 2 (aka CASA II) and the soon-to-be-completed CASA 3 (aka CASA III). Perhaps an article for all three buildings, although I'm not sure how that would be appropriately titled. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Assuming the three really are related (e.g. by common developer or owners, and/or by architecture), a combination article would be fine. It could be titled by listing them all, as in "Casa Condominio Residenza, Casa 2, and Casa 3" if no more compact term is found. If they were known in practice as "Casa Condominio Residenza Complex" that would be convenient, but I wouldn't coin such a term, i would only use it if it is actually used IRL. --doncram 03:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with this is a good suggestion -- all three condos should be covered in a single article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion, I'm saying keep in the expectation that we end up with one article for the three buildings. Combined, they are notable. Each one individually, maybe that is debatable. They do have the same developer (Cresford Developments), architect (architectsAlliance) and style, and are in reasonable proximity (33 Charles Street East, 42 Charles Street East, 50 Charles Street East, respectively). Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant content, resulting in a promotional article. The article contains copy such as:
  • in November, 2005, the Casa was one of the three condos with the greatest units sold -- 81 units.[3] Residents took occupancy in October 2008.[4][5][6]
This is routine for any development. The sources do not establish a case for why this building needs an encyclopedia entry. The content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

CoSpaces

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I haved made some changes to the article, hoping it will match the guidelines. Please update me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas-pluralvonglas (talkcontribs) 12:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Health and Physical Education Arena

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

Non-notable university area. Fails GNG. References are passing mentions, not in-depth independent coverage. Can be mentioned at TSU article in the Athletic Facilities section with a redirect. There is no reason for a stand-alone article. I previously redirected this, but was reverted with comment "Division I basketball arenas are notable". That seems to be opinion not based in policy hence taking to AFD. MB 16:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep As I said in my reversion, Division I basketball arenas, especially active ones like this, are considered notable by consensus. Also, the arena will be hosting University of Houston basketball games next year as well (another Division I team) so simply stating that information in the TSU article is insufficient. In fairness, that information wasn't in the article when it was redirected, but I have since added it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the well-reasoned arguments of Smartyllama. Lepricavark (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above (especially Smartyllama). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment No one is providing any sources to demonstrate coverage necessary to justify an article, or provided a policy exemption. Vague claims that based on prior "consensus" are not based in policy. WP:CON applies to article content. In the case of AFD, consensus means there is a consensus about whether this topic meets or does not meet a notability guideline. Please explain how it does. MB 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. What consensus? I'd suggest a merge to some list, but I cannot find a relevant one. The building does not seem notable - it has no independent coverage - and the fact that some notable people played sports there doesn't make it notable. Notability is not inherited. Sport venues should not be notable because they are locations of notable events, just like we shouldn't say that 'this music hall is notable because a notable musician played there' or 'this gallery is notable because notable artist had her works displayed there'. And so on. Closing admin should also remember that quality of arguments, and their respect for our policies, should matter - this is not a vote. (And anyway, I see one argument against, and then two Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Per_others). PS. If possible, I'd prefer a merge of this content somewhere rather then deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Usage of the arena as a home court for an NCAA Division I basketball team is a strong claim of notability and the sourcing here is adequate to support that claim. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
"Claims" of notability need to be supported by coverage. MB 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep Upon googling this I found multiple third party sources talking about this arena that would meet notability per WP:GEOFEAT. A consensus was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball a few years ago that all D1 basketball arenas are notable. You can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Master Table there is a list of all articles for each school. EVERY school in D1 basketball has an article for its arena. If this is to be deleted it would be the only D1 school without an article for its basketball arena which doesn't seem right and could cause issues in some of the basketball templates that link to the arena articles.Mjs32193 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
1. Can you provide any links to show how third party sources talk about this arena. 2. The fact that is linked in a template is irrelevant, WP does not establish notability. 3. Is there any documentation of this "consensus" from a few years ago, and how can a project override GNG? 4. A redirect can be kept to keep a blue link in the template, however there are many templates with redlinks throughout WP so that is really not important. 5. I see this AFD is advertised at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball which is probably what is attracting so many keeps that aren't providing valid arguments. MB 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
And notifying relevant WikiProjects is exactly what you are supposed to do. Smartyllama (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking into this, I think the arena is more commonly-known as "H&PE Arena". Articles discussing Houston playing here use that term. Those articles, I believe, help establish notability. IMO, the other keep arguments here are a bit weak and are mostly of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type. I think adding more reliable sources to the article are the best way to improve the article and keep it from being merged/redirected to Texas Southern. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, there is no coverage of the arena, even under the name "H&PE Arena". A passing mention that some event is happening in the arena is routine and not in-depth coverage about the topic. MB 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center for another place with similar goggle hits - just announcements of things happening there. Yet no one is arguing keep. Sports should not be handled differently. MB 18:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Added additional references. Division I basketball arenas/stadiums are considered notable by consensus. Sports should be and are handled differently.spatms (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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.

Elbe Crossing 2

Elbe Crossing 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Elbe Crossing 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable, routine, power-transmission towers. Alsee (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Searching in German on "Elbekreuzung 2" turns up lots of hits. Elbe Crossing 1/2 appear to be the highest electrical transmission towers in Europe. Someone who reads German may be able to analyze better. 04:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now - I think some work probably needs to be done figuring out the strength of the German sources for this and Elbe Crossing 1 and integrating them into the main article, and possibly a merge of the two articles should be performed, but given that this appears to be a large and important piece of infrastructure deleting it seems off. Artw (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Elbe Crossing 1

Elbe Crossing 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Elbe Crossing 1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable, routine, power-transmission towers. Alsee (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now - I think some work probably needs to be done figuring out the strength of the German sourcs for this and Elbe Crossing 2 and integrating them into the main article, and possibly a merge of the two articles should be performed, but given that this appears to be a large and important piece of infrastructure deleting it seems off. Artw (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Indy Hall

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

WP:BEFORE shows insufficient sources to meet notability criteria. Redirect suggested by A7 decliner is implausible. Waggie (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - The subject has received coverage in numerous sources, including a couple of books. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND.- MrX 17:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, MrX, how many of those sources are a) based outside of Philly, and b) actually talking about Indy Hall, and not just mention that something happened there? Primefac (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't count them, but I did provide a link. There are enough sources to extract information for at least a small article. [12][13][14][15]- MrX 18:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
MrX Those are rather lackluster sources. 1 is a paragraph that briefly mentions the owner saying something. 2 is a non-notable book that doesn't exactly provide coverage. And the other two are local coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I hope no one expects me to make heroic efforts to save this article. I'm already overinvested.- MrX 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi MrX, thank you for sharing your vote and the Google Search link. I performed this Google Search as part of my WP:BEFORE, and just reviewed it again as due diligence. I see a lot of passing mentions, interviews, local-only coverage, and thinly disguised blogs on job sites. I just don't see anything beyond what the article has already, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Waggie (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Coworking – Meets WP:GNG, although perhaps on a weaker level, and meets WP:AUD, but a merge would benefit the Coworking article as well. If kept, this short article would benefit from expansion; at this time the article has no claim of significance. See below for some source examples. North America1000 03:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  • "Coworking Growing in Popularity across Philadelphia". States News Service. (subscription required)
  • "The Indy Hall Experiment". Philadelphia.
  • "Timaree's Body: Indy Hall In-Depth". Philadelphia Weekly.
  • "Philly Is in the Middle of a Co-Working Boom. Here's Why". Thrillist.
  • Working in the Unoffice: A Guide to Coworking for Indie Workers, Small Businesses, and Nonprofits. Night Owls Press. p. 217.
  • Working in the Unofficepp. 53–54.
  • "A New Way of Working". Success. (subscription required)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to encourage additional participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Martin-Lipscomb Performing Arts Center

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

Non-notable performing arts center lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge as above to the Highlands, North Carolina. The center lack the in-depth coverage required for notability. MB 18:51, 17 May 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=781925348"
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