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

Lamont Gallery

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

Non-notable art gallery, as clearly stated in the article text has a minor collection. Not even a notable entity within the Academy Hyungjoo98 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, not notable enough for a redirect. Most mentions of a Lamont Gallery point towards a gallery in London, a completely different entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talkcontribs) 05:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any such gallery. alphalfalfa(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Google Lamont gallery London. Although it is also not notable.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
If you google Lamont Gallery by itself, it scarcely mentions the one in London.alphalfalfa(talk) 10:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This gallery has been covered by local and statewide news such as seacoast online and NHPR, and also New Hampshire tour guides. Works exhibited or in its possession have been used in a multitude of other works. The gallery has hosted many significant artists, and holds the works of many significant articles in its collections. It passes WP:GNG. Also, small does not mean minor. Though not large, it contains significant paintings from known artists, like Diego Rivera. -alphalfalfa(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
None of the paintings are significant, and even if they were it would not establish the notability of this gallery. The Lamont Gallery could be easily explained with one or two sentences in the main Phillips Exeter Academy page Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the point of this museum. The main focus of the gallery is to exhibit rotating shows of visiting artists, exhibitions of which have been documented by news sites. The collection is secondary. Also, yes, the paintings are significant, and have toured around to several larger museums. See the new text I added. The significance of a museum is, unlike what you stated, directly derived from the exhibitions and collections. The gallery has significance by itself, not owed to the academy, unlike the dozens of articles you splintered off from the Hill that got deleted. alphalfalfa(talk) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Unlike the articles of the Hill that were deleted (which took quite a bit of discussion and debate), this article is unanimously non-notable. There is no indication in the article or anywhere else that any of the paintings are significant (if they were, articles should be made for them first!) There are three references, two are from itself, one is a insignificant local tourist guide. Also, I urge you to not use personal attacks in the future WP:PA Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all, there was little to no debate on those articles. They were unanimously deleted. Secondly, a painting needs not to have an article to be important. It is by an important artist, and has been showcased a important museums. I must reiterate also that the importance of the collection is secondary. The most important thing about the gallery is its rotating exhibitions. I will add sources from newspapers about those exhibitions. I also have to point out that I am not personally attacking you, but merely clarifying a concept to you. I mean no offense, if any was perceived. alphalfalfa(talk) 09:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The gallery's opening in 1953 was covered by The New York Times, which dealt with its naming, cost, and source of financing.[1] That could form the kernel of a history section. The New Hampshire magazine piece cited in the article touches on restoration of the facility and temporary relocation to a new site. The gallery's hosting of traveling exhibitions by notable artists might be deemed run-of-the-mill for museums, but in articles about specific exhibitions, The Boston Globe and The Union Leader and have covered what sets it apart from other institutions - its permenant collection, exhibitions of works by faculty and staff, and the art collections of alumni.[2][3][4]
The present article is short enough that it could be merged to Phillips Exeter Academy, but the topic has garnered sufficient attention from the world at large to meet WP:ORG independently. If all sources were mined thoroughly for content, the article could be expanded 3–5 fold, at which point it would no longer fit into the school. So keep and improve is the best option. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Worldbruce I'm afraid I can't access the first article without a NYT subscription. alphalfalfa(talk) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Alphalfalfa, contact WP:REFDESK. They can help. John from Idegon (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm a NY Times subscriber, so I can get to the article. Technically, it is correct to say that it addresses its naming, cost, and source of financing, but that's making it out to sound a lot more than it really is. The entire article is three sentences, buried on page 63. And, given that it's credited to the AP wire service, it's a stretch to say the NYT covered the event. It's just filler. That hardly establishes WP:N. Here's a link to the article, but it's behind the paywall. Hopefully, somebody who has access to The Boston Globe can evaluate that article for us, but if it's not any better than the NYT article, I'd have to say we should delete this at not having sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
PS, Actually, thinking about this more, a redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy seems like an even better alternative then outright deletion. This is all based on the sources I can see now. If somebody can show that the Boston Globe article covers this in depth (or other good sources), I could be convinced to change my mind, but for the moment, I don't see how keeping this makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address RoySmith's comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @RoySmith: I'm sorry the paragraph in The New York Times was disappointing, I didn't intend my description of it to be disingenuous. "Covered" does make it sound like they sent someone there, a better choice of word might have been reported or printed. I was trying to make two points with the NYT. First, the gallery has been noticed outside New Hampshire, so the organization doesn't fail WP:AUD, which wasn't obvious from the sources already cited. Second, the NYT could be the starting point for a history section, something currently missing from the article. I did not mean to imply that the NYT alone established the gallery's notability. WP:ORGDEPTH tells us to use multiple sources when depth of coverage is not substantial, and the NYT could be one of those sources.
If you email me, I can reply with some of the sources, including the The Boston Globe, attached. It's about celebrations throughout the school, with only a small portion about the gallery. The most directly relevant quote is "... began Friday with the opening of an exhibition of tribal art at the Lamont Gallery at the academy. The primitive art collection of the late Michael Clarke Rockefeller (class of 1956) is on loan from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art." An editor might also be able to make something of what it says later about Principal Lewis Perry, who undertook the academy's largest building program, and under whose leadership the gallery was built. The source is useful as a concrete example of something that several sources talk about - where the gallery's exhibits come from. They rent traveling exhibits, like many galleries, but one of the things that sets them apart from other galleries is that they have billionaire alumni with art collections that can be borrowed from places like The Met. The Boston Globe is another source that could be combined with others to establish notability.
A bit of searching turned up nine more independent, reliable sources. The longest (882 words) is an AP piece. It contains a bit about the location of the gallery and its rooms, and quite a bit about the new gallery director and curating for the gallery. It says exhibitions are often chosen to tie in with classes being taught at the academy, and gives a specific example.[5] Four more sources address the planning and construction of the gallery. I don't have access to the full text, but from what I've been able to glean, they discuss all the things one would expect in a major construction project - planning bodies, dates, architects, cost overruns, etc.[6][7][8][9] Another source I haven't read because it isn't free seems, based on its abstract, to strengthen the gallery's claim to notability as a tourist attraction.[10] The final three sources are short ones. Two discuss arrivals or departures of directors.[11][12] Articles about museums often include something about the directors/curators, either in a management section or woven into the history section. At least one director, Cabot Lyford, is notable. The third short source is another article from The Boston Globe. I'm not sure I'd use it if I were writing the article, but it talks briefly about an academic committee formed to censor a gallery exhibition the academy was concerned might not be wholly appropriate under the circumstances.[13]

References

  1. ^ "Lamont Gallery Opened at Exeter". The New York Times. 31 May 1953. p. 63. 
  2. ^ "Special Events at Exeter Mark its 200th Year". The Boston Globe. 26 October 1980. 
  3. ^ "Exhibit features photographs, paintings, sculpture, stained glass by Phillips Exeter Academy's faculty and staff". The Union Leader. 8 November 2012. 
  4. ^ "Curators for Philips Exeter Academy's Lamont Gallery dig through collections for 'as-is' exhibition this month". The Union Leader. 3 July 2013. 
  5. ^ Forrest, Rachel (8 November 2003). "Art center offers portrait of alien life in the United States". AP. 
  6. ^ "Academy Plans Art Gallery". The Portsmouth Herald. 26 November 1951. 
  7. ^ "$100,000 plans for a new art center: Lamont gallery". Art Digest. Vol. 26. 15 December 1951. p. 12. 
  8. ^ "Construction Begins On Lamont Gallery". The Portsmouth Herald. 16 June 1952. p. 7. 
  9. ^ "Classes Scheduled in Lamont Gallery After Christmas". The Portsmouth Herald. 4 December 1952. p. 15. 
  10. ^ Radcliffe Rogers, Barbara (Nov–Dec 2016). "Destination New Hampshire". Art New England. Vol. 37 no. 6. p. 40-45. Abstract: The article offers travel tips for those interested in art and culture and visiting the state of New Hampshire, providing information on the Lamont Gallery at Phillips Exeter Academy, the Alva de Mars Megan Chapel Art Center at Saint Anselm College and the New Hampshire Institute of Art (NHIA). 
  11. ^ Norman A. Geske; Eugenia Robbins (Spring 1972). "College Museum Notes". Art Journal. 31 (3): 306. 
  12. ^ "High Museum hires new director of education". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 28 March 1997. p. F5. 
  13. ^ "Exhibit offers social commentary, and controversy, in clay". The Boston Globe. 7 December 2001 – via HighBeam Research. (Subscription required (help)). 

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Amr El-Shamy

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

There is insufficient evidence of notability of this individual. There are brief mentions in local news for a single event only (WP:BLP1E). There may be a conflict of interest as well, as the page creator is a single-purpose account. Deli nk (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is coverage in independent sources. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/12/egypt-artist-photoshop-digital-amr-el-shamy.html https://dailynewsegypt.com/2016/11/07/591141/ https://www.designfaves.com/2017/01/amr-elshamy-the-art-of-storytelling-and-magical-sceneries Ross-c (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Scandinavian collage museum

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

fails WP:ORG. I found very little coverage for this. also given it's a converted bus shelter not sure how significant a museum it is. compared to other art museums we have in WP which tend to be well established buildings. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a (small) art museum. It's a public attraction. It's a roadside attraction. It is covered in newspapers and other sources. I notice numerous separate individual artists' resumes/webpages mentioning their showing pieces in exhibits there, and there is news coverage in Peru and other countries such as [http://mobi.peruthisweek.com/news-peruvian-collage-artist-participates-in-norway-show-111153/ this article in "Peru this week". Based on its apparently small size alone, I sort of question how monumental an achievement it is to exhibit there, and I think it is a service for Wikipedia to show exactly what it is, as a reference to persons trying to evaluate the artists' work for any reason. --doncram 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - interesting but not notable. No significant reliable sources are provided to suggest notability. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a "service" for persons evaluating an artist's work.--Rpclod (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Did a search in a database of 100+ Norwegian media outlets. The museum is mentioned in one - 1 - news piece, the one in tiny Opdalingen which is cited in the current article. The museum has not gained any media attention whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter Diamond (illustrator)

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

This article Peter Diamond (illustrator) is self-promotional. I can vouch for this because I made the page some years ago, about my own illustration work, in a very misguided attempt to improve my presence on the web. My thinking at the time was that if it were inappropriate for Wikipedia it would be removed, and if it isn't removed then maybe it belongs. This was of course a sorry misunderstanding of, and disrespect to, Wikipedia.

As much as the tone is fairly neutral and the references included originally are legitimate ones, making it perhaps pass Notability muster on a strictly technical basis, I feel that the fact that this article would not have been created had I not done so myself makes it unworthy of Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia in my work nearly every day, and find it invaluable. Frankly, it turns my stomach that I contributed this piece of it and so this is my contrite request that it be considered for deletion. I hope I'm going about this the right way, if not please advise. Pete Diamond (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested deletion on WT:AFD. I have no opinion on the subject. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so were you editing as Lisa Loibl (talk · contribs) who created the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talkcontribs) 15:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) that's correct. Pete Diamond (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, per G7. Elliot321 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The claim that the article is an autobiography is credible, no other other editors have significant contributed to the content and no reasonable arguments in favour of keeping the article have been brought forward. While strictly speaking Lisa Loibl ought to make the request for deletion per WP:G7, I think we can do the subject the courtesy of fulfilling his request. Mduvekot (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as the author/subject has requested and is the main editor of the article Atlantic306 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Hall (effects artist)

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

Won an Annie but as part of a large team - most of whom have had articles deleted at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the usual suspects: WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The Annies aren't high-profile awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Marshall (effects artist)

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

Won an Annie, but only as part of a team (most of the rest of the team's articles have already been found not notable at AfD). Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 18:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete While winning an award like the Technical Achievement Award or Annie indicates significant recognition for a major accomplishment, as is the VES award, the Annie and VES were awarded to a team, not him individually. The biggest problem is that there simply aren't enough sources to build an article from. Even the most rudimentary facts about the subject are missing. Beyond the fact that the subject was a member of teams that won notable awards we have nothing. I don't really see any alternatives; a mention in a hypothetical List of winners of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Scientific and Technical Awards perhaps, even though it would be a rather long list with over 50 awardees per year. Mduvekot (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Halon Entertainment

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

Recreation of article that was previously speedily deleted under G11 (see User_talk:Acroterion#recreation_of_Halon_Entertainment) Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING as promotional and lacks significant covergae in independent, reliable sources. Peripheral mentions in awn.com, announcements of speaking engagements at an industry conference. Sourced to press releases via prnewswire and cryengine.com for example. Editors with a genuine interest in the topic ought to write Postvisualization instead of using Wikipedia to promote a business. Mduvekot (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 20:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 20:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros/Publication list

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

Es una subpágina, no enciclopédica, de un artículo Jcfidy (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This list of publications is a sub-page for a Wikipedia GLAM initiative. It is totally acceptable to have the page be a subpage of the main page. It has yet to be fully developed, but it is already being used heavily as a resource for creating Wikipedia pages that will be either created or improved on English, Spanish, and Portuguese Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a problem. This project is aiming to automate and improve Wikipedia, using these fully formatted citations -- the aim is that they can be easily copied and reused. There is no reason for this sub-page to be deleted. The Spanish editor is not even willing to have a discussion with me about this. This is so upsetting, as the intention here is very productive for three language Wikipedia. I don't understand. -- BrillLyle (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This subpage is also not complete. If I need to address concerns about the publication list, I would like the opportunity to improve the page before such a massive amount of constructive information is deleted. I disagree strongly with this deletion, and think it is really aggressive and unhelpful. I don't think that the Spanish admin took the time to understand this subpage. BrillLyle (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Si forma parte de los recursos de algún wikiproyecto lo lógico es que sea una subpágina del wikiproyecto pero no de un artículo. Creo entender que su función va a ser similar a la del proyecto Biblioteca de es.wiki ¿o lo he entendido mal? --Jcfidy (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This list of publications is a sub-page for a Wikipedia GLAM initiative. It is totally acceptable to have the page be a subpage of the main page. It has yet to be fully developed, but it is already being used heavily as a resource for creating Wikipedia pages that will be either created or improved on English, Spanish, and Portuguese Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a problem. This project is aiming to automate and improve Wikipedia, using these fully formatted citations -- the aim is that they can be easily copied and reused. There is no reason for this sub-page to be deleted. The Spanish editor is not even willing to have a discussion with me about this. This is so upsetting, as the intention here is very productive for three language Wikipedia. I don't understand. -- BrillLyle (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This subpage is also not complete. If I need to address concerns about the publication list, I would like the opportunity to improve the page before such a massive amount of constructive information is deleted. I disagree strongly with this deletion, and think it is really aggressive and unhelpful. I don't think that the Spanish admin took the time to understand this subpage. BrillLyle (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Si forma parte de los recursos de algún wikiproyecto lo lógico es que sea una subpágina del wikiproyecto pero no de un artículo. Creo entender que su función va a ser similar a la del proyecto Biblioteca de es.wiki ¿o lo he entendido mal? --Jcfidy (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Al igual que esta discusión abarca varios idiomas: Creo que usted ha entendido mal la situación aquí. La eliminación de esta subpágina es en contra de WP: BOLD y tendrá un impacto negativo en el idioma español y portugués Wikipedia.
CPPC como parte de su actividad publica trabajos académicos y de historia del arte en múltiples idiomas que serán citas para apoyar contenido que afecte a Wikipedias de inglés, español, portugués y otros idiomas. Esta subpágina es un reflejo de ese trabajo porque es únicamente multilingüe. Para que los editores maximicen el uso de la página CPPC principal y la subpágina con las citas, ambas páginas deben personalizarse para cada idioma: las plantillas de citas reflejan las etiquetas de idioma de forma diferente.
Una vez más abogo con usted para considerar cuán negativo será el impacto de la eliminación, especialmente para los usuarios de habla española.
Puedo y estoy dispuesto a mejorar la página principal y la subpágina para ilustrar esto mejor. Pero eliminar la subpágina es muy dañina. Le ruego que reconsidere esta postura. Al tener una interpretación estrecha aquí, usted como un editor están teniendo un impacto muy negativo en algo que está muy destinado a ser positivo y constructivo. BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Just like this discussion spans multiple languages: I believe that you have misunderstood the situation here. Deleting this sub-page is against WP:BOLD and will have a negative impact on Spanish and Portuguese language Wikipedia.
CPPC as part of its activity publishes academic and art history works in multiple languages that will be citations to support content that impacts English, Spanish, Portuguese as well as other language Wikipedias. This sub-page is reflective of that work because it is uniquely multi-lingual. For editors to maximize usage of both the main CPPC page and the subpage with the citations both pages need to be customized for each language: citation templates reflect language tags differently.
I again plead with you to consider how negative the impact of the deletion will be, especially for Spanish speaking users.
I can and am willing to improve both the main page and the sub-page to illustrate this better. But to delete the sub-page is so very harmful. I beg you to reconsider this stance. By having a narrow interpretation here, you as one editor are having very negative impact on something that is very much intended to be positive and constructive. BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

    • From https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:BrillLyle
Esto no se trata de una tienda de enlaces, ya que he dicho que esta página no está completa. El plan era mejorar su contenido. La página es increíblemente relevante. Pero no parece que usted está interesado en tener una conversación aquí sobre eso.
La CPPC tiene su sede en los Estados Unidos, pero es internacional y muy panregional en los países de habla hispana que utilizan esta Wikipedia. Su misión es la publicación de obras que necesitan estar disponibles en múltiples idiomas. Cada subpágina debe ser completamente utilizable en cada idioma.
El impacto de suprimir esta subpágina significará que CPPC tendrá que duplicar GLAM sus páginas de iniciativa inglesa en Wikipedias en inglés, español y portugués. La página GLAM actual está aquí: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros
Esta es una situación en la que se debe permitir una excepción en el espíritu de WP: BOLD - y también en apoyo de una iniciativa GLAM que planea incluir una gran donación de imágenes.
Al eliminar esta subpágina, está afectando negativamente la cobertura de la Wikipedia española del arte moderno latinoamericano. Esto está perjudicando significativamente a su propia Wikipedia.
De sus acciones aquí también están impactando negativamente Wikipedia Inglés, como un compañero de redacción ha puesto en cola la sub-página de Inglés para la eliminación aquí, tan bien hecho! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list
El resultado final de no flexibilidad aquí es increíblemente negativo para los hispanohablantes y no reflejará la página CPPC adecuadamente. Esta eliminación creará 3 veces el trabajo y no reflejará la entrada correctamente. No creo que sea correcto para usted como un editor tener tal impacto, para interponerse en el camino de una iniciativa de GLAM que tendría un resultado tan positivo en su enciclopedia. Pero esta es su elección.
Yo me opongo. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


This is not a link store, as I said this page is not complete. The plan was to improve its content. The page is incredibly relevant. But it does not look like you're interested in having a conversation here about that.
The CPPC is based in the United States, but is international and very panregional in the Spanish-speaking countries that use this Wikipedia. Its mission is to publish works that need to be available in multiple languages. Each subpage must be fully usable in each language.
The impact of deleting this subpage will mean that CPPC will have to duplicate its GLAM pages of English initiative in Wikipedias in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The current GLAM page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros
This is a situation where an exception should be allowed in the spirit of WP: BOLD - and also in support of a GLAM initiative that plans to include a large donation of images.
By deleting this subpage, it is negatively affecting the Spanish Wikipedia's coverage of modern Latin American art. This is significantly harming your own Wikipedia.
Of their actions here are also negatively impacting Wikipedia English, as a copywriting partner has put the English sub-page for deletion here, so well done! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list
The final result of non-flexibility here is incredibly negative for Spanish speakers and will not reflect the CPPC page properly. This deletion will create 3 times the job and will not reflect the input correctly. I do not think it is right for you as an editor to have such an impact, to get in the way of a GLAM initiative that would have such a positive result in your encyclopedia. But this is your choice.
I oppose.
    • From https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:BrillLyle
Esto no se trata de una tienda de enlaces, ya que he dicho que esta página no está completa. El plan era mejorar su contenido. La página es increíblemente relevante. Pero no parece que usted está interesado en tener una conversación aquí sobre eso.
La CPPC tiene su sede en los Estados Unidos, pero es internacional y muy panregional en los países de habla hispana que utilizan esta Wikipedia. Su misión es la publicación de obras que necesitan estar disponibles en múltiples idiomas. Cada subpágina debe ser completamente utilizable en cada idioma.
El impacto de suprimir esta subpágina significará que CPPC tendrá que duplicar GLAM sus páginas de iniciativa inglesa en Wikipedias en inglés, español y portugués. La página GLAM actual está aquí: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros
Esta es una situación en la que se debe permitir una excepción en el espíritu de WP: BOLD - y también en apoyo de una iniciativa GLAM que planea incluir una gran donación de imágenes.
Al eliminar esta subpágina, está afectando negativamente la cobertura de la Wikipedia española del arte moderno latinoamericano. Esto está perjudicando significativamente a su propia Wikipedia.
De sus acciones aquí también están impactando negativamente Wikipedia Inglés, como un compañero de redacción ha puesto en cola la sub-página de Inglés para la eliminación aquí, tan bien hecho! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list
El resultado final de no flexibilidad aquí es increíblemente negativo para los hispanohablantes y no reflejará la página CPPC adecuadamente. Esta eliminación creará 3 veces el trabajo y no reflejará la entrada correctamente. No creo que sea correcto para usted como un editor tener tal impacto, para interponerse en el camino de una iniciativa de GLAM que tendría un resultado tan positivo en su enciclopedia. Pero esta es su elección.
Yo me opongo. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A reminder that subpages are disabled in the English Wikipedia mainspace, and WP:SUB prohibits storage of article content in subpages. Delete or projectify. 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Both list pages and sub-pages exist for filmographies as well as lists of publications. Again the negative impact this action will have will be harmful to end users and especially Spanish Wikipedia. I fear you are not understanding my point and my request for flexibility here. BrillLyle (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Existen tanto páginas de la lista como subpáginas para las filmografías, así como listas de publicaciones. Una vez más el impacto negativo que tendrá esta acción será perjudicial para los usuarios finales y especialmente para la Wikipedia española. Me temo que no entiende mi punto y mi solicitud de flexibilidad aquí BrillLyle (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I again object to you as one editor having such a negative impact on something that is so beneficial to the encyclopedias of multiple languages. What can I add to further explain the positive and constructive benefit of being WP:BOLD. Do I have to add this publication list to the main page?
Otra vez me opongo a usted como un editor que tiene un impacto negativo sobre algo que es tan beneficioso para las enciclopedias de múltiples lenguas. ¿Qué puedo añadir para explicar más el beneficio positivo y constructivo de ser WP: BOLD. ¿Tengo que añadir esta lista de publicaciones a la página principal? BrillLyle (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The impact of your action will require a huge duplication of effort on the project side, which is not reflective of the international and pan-regional impact of the organization and its publications.
El impacto de su acción requerirá una gran duplicación de esfuerzos por parte del proyecto, lo cual no refleja el impacto internacional y pan-regional de la organización y sus publicaciones. BrillLyle (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I cannot follow the Spanish parts and wonder why they are there at all it being about the English Wikipedia. Having said that, a little leeway would help. This is a project that will develop in a major way the documentation and therefore the articles about South American art and artists. It is frightfully underdeveloped. In my opinion this proposal for deletion needs to be speedily removed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a question. Would a separate "List of Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros publications" page be acceptable. It would not be a sub-page, but would be a separate entry unto itself. / Tengo una pregunta. ¿Sería aceptable una página separada "Lista de Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros"? No sería una subpágina, sino que sería una entrada separada en sí misma. BrillLyle (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Google traslate For my part I have no problem in making it a separate list, as an attachment. --Jcfidy (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I think I understand the concern about sub-page versus list. I will work on the list page to develop it more. Is that acceptable? Would it be okay to then use "see also" to point to list from CPPC page? / Bueno. Creo que entiendo la preocupación por sub-página versus lista. Trabajaré en la página de la lista para desarrollarla más. ¿Es eso aceptable? ¿Estaría OK usar entonces "ver también" para apuntar a la lista de la página CPPC? -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. --Jcfidy (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Battala Woodcut Prints

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

Unsourced, unremarkable regional art style. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Battala woodcut prints have a very significant and pioneering role in the evolution of Indian art prints, every book on Indian art prints mentions Battala woodcut prints, if these were not significant reputed museums like Victoria & Albert Museum, British Museum, Victoria Museum would not have stored them, a wikipedia page on Battala prints is essential as not many people are aware of it because of rarity of these prints Dpradeepc (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)dpradeepc
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It was not difficult to find Google book sources from each of the Oxford, Indiana and Columbia University presses. Plenty more sources are out there.104.163.142.4 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Good sources exists, these prints are in collections of major museums and have played a role that, if only briefly, is historically significant. Mduvekot (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Weir House

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

I cannot see how this building is notable enough to merit more than a brief article in the university's page. Redirect undone by page creator. TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I see that an aticle on the subject was deleted as a result of a discussion. Can't see how anyting might have changed. Speedy D?TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
keep That debate was more than ten years ago though. Now there are several references available:[1][2](a mention)[3][4][5][6][7][8] so I think an independent article could be written from suitable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
keep" Weir House is a significant residential college at Victoria University of Wellington. Originally founded along the lines of an Oxford college, it is a significant landmark in Wellington and several books have been written on its history. To delete Weir House, without deleting articles such as Knox College, Otago or Selwyn College, Otago would be to apply two different policies on notability, and to leave Wikipedia without a significant institution within New Zealand's university history. Darren (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that it was possible to come up with a bunch of references; however all of them seem to be fundamentally about the university. As for the second person believing this should be kept, the argument is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, much as TheLongTone has said, the two sources in the article are not independent of the University, while the sources discovered by Graeme seem to be mentions in articles about something else. Even though it's bricks and mortar and, probably for NZ, been around for a fair time there's no evidence of a heritage listing or architectural importance. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Aspen Heights

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Another non-notable development project. No indication of notability. Searches turned up no in-depth sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Run of the mill urban development project. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Henry Radusky

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

The page previously contained a variety of controversies surrounding the individual's architectural projects, that do not necessarily reflect personal controversies. Furthermore, upon searching for information about the individual, little information (besides that from the NYC Office of Professions and a LinkedIn profile) appears. It is therefore my proposal that the page be deleted as its subject is not sufficiently notable. --Hunterm267Talk 21:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

District 8 Jakarta

District 8 Jakarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "District 8 Jakarta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches did not turn up the type of information to show that it passes WP:GNG, all references are mere mentions. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The District 8 Jakarta complex includes Treasury Tower(?) (which has a separate article) which is the 2nd tallest building in Indonesia, and as such is pretty clearly Wikipedia-notable. It looks like it seemed natural in the Treasury Tower article to describe it alone, and to link to this separate article about the complex. However, the two topics could be covered in one article, if that is somehow so much better. --doncram 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment - While the Treasury Tower clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT, the development doesn't appear to. Inclusion of the few salient points in District 8 in the article on the single notable structure within the complex would definitely not be out of line. Onel5969 TT me 12:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • District 8 Jakarta is one of the largest development project in Jakarta in recent times.There are many other notable buildings/skyscraper in the complex, other than Treasury Tower. I failed to realize, why you want to delete this!@User:doncram --— Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talkcontribs) 07:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please read WP:GEOFEAT as to what constitutes notability for a structure or development. Searches did not turn up the type of coverage to show it meets those guidelines. Also, retaliatory nominations, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guthrie, Arizona, don't really help your cause. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the district article, and Treasury Tower can be merged into it, without further discussion, just by any editor. Whether or not other buildings in the district would be notable for separate articles, they can be covered in the district article. --doncram 04:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

UrbanToronto

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

I love this blog myself as I'm fascinated about what's happening in Toronto but from what I can tell from my websearch, it fails GNG. This odd addition that "Wikipedian Simon Pulsifer is a member of UrbanToronto," both here and in Simon's bio article, strikes me as an attempt to somehow confer notability -- when in fact anyone can join their discussions. If there's significant independent coverage out there in reliable sources that I've missed, please let me know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, I do see that it rates a nice passing mention in The Globe and Mail where the architecture writer calls it "one of my go-to sites for all things development" in Toronto -- that's good. But we'd need much more than that, useful as the site is for that author as well as laymen like me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Shawn in Montreal: I respectfully request that you withdraw this request and revisit later. The article was literally created yesterday, and I am still working on its development. Some items have been added that may be trivial, and they may have been added by anonymous users who may not be as familiar with Wikipedia policies. Just give it a chance to develop and establish notability, and then we can revisit whether it should be deleted or not later. I would greatly appreciate some extra time, I do not have a large amount of time IRL to dedicate to expansion this weekend. --Natural RX 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • These AFDs are typically open for a minimum of seven days and you'll have plenty of time to improve it after what I realize is a holiday weekend in Ontario. In the meantime, if others can find reliable sources I'll happily withdraw as I too like this site. And sources don't have to be on the article. If anyone can simply demonstrate that it meets GNG -- or WP:WEBCRIT -- that would be fine. So no, I'm sorry, but I'd rather not withdraw what I still believe to be a valid Afd for a non-notable subject. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Please give it some time. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Draftify. While there's certainly notability potential here, it isn't actually demonstrated by this article as written or sourced — and if you need time to get it up to snuff, then the place to do that is in the draft or user sandbox spaces, not in mainspace. And I'm a reader of it, too, so it's not a question of personally lacking familiarity with the topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Vipac

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

Only employs 100 people. Probably non-notable company, failing WP:NCORP, and created by a WP:SPA. Extensive "awards" section - the most recent are both vanity awards, sceptical about the others. Edwardx (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There is I think sufficient WP:NEXIST to keep this article. "only employs 100 people" - not a reason for deletion - notability is not conferred by the number of employees. NOM has only ided 2 of 17 awards as vanities. "probably not notable" - why - what WP:BEFORE did NOM do. There are easy to find standard google search results for partnerships with major academic institutions, eg the ANU, specialised facilities being opened by Federal Government Ministers, commissioned research] by Four Corners, etc. There is material for a more in-depth article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:CORP itself, as mentioned above, actually says press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization, any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly, any material where the company talks about itself therefore any sourcing with immediate resemblance can be discounted; WP:NOT also says that "articles about garage or local companies are typically unacceptable" therefore the 100 employee count can be counted as a local company. To analyze sources: 1 is company website, 2 and 3 are event listing, 4-10 are announcements therefore not independent. There's also clear unconfessed company connections here, 1 and 2 accounts. That alone is enough for our WP:Deletion policy and without exceptions even when considering the coverage found was only announcements or notices. No matter if it's 20 or 30 press releases, it wouldn't cut it. WP:N explicitly says that articles need to guaranteed they're not violating WP:What Wikipedia is not, before chances of an article are gauged. SwisterTwister talk 18:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes the current in-article references are poor, but there are NEXIST others which are independent. The company is a nation wide company, not local. Where is employee count referred to in any guideline, and even if it was it would only be a presumption not definitive. Aoziwe (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Most of the article is advertising - the list of "notable" projects reeks of promotion as does the list of awards most of which are unreferenced. -- HighKing++ 18:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is not a sales prospectus, and that's what the article is. 100% advertorial content, which is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

300 South Tryon

300 South Tryon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "300 South Tryon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable building. Only claims to significance are that, if completed according to plan, (i) it will be the eighth tallest building in Charlotte, North Carolina and (ii) it will be the first tall building in Charlotte to have been constructed since 2012. This is not the "significance" contemplated by WP:GEOFEAT. Also, sources in the article are local, except when they are primary. Web searches show the same -- now that the building is nearing completion, there is some "buzz" about it in the Charlotte news sources, but nothing beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article says that the building is under construction, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems to me that it would make more sense if we waited until the construction of this building is finished before deciding whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets wp:GNG. Develop using sources available to expand the article to cover more about it. There are a couple Charlotte Observer articles about it. I don't understand the dismissal of sources as either being local so invalid (why? the Charlotte Observer is a valid source like the New York Times and both write about local matters) or being primary (it is appropriate and good to use primary sources). Also the building is under construction and sources exist and it is not a matter of speculation about whether some film might be created or not. --doncram 18:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doncram: Don, I tend to not badger people who offer opinions different than mine. But you did form part of your comment as a question, so I'll answer here. The concern about purely-local coverage comes from WP:AUD. And that provision of the guideline makes a lot of sense, especially in the instant context. Is there any new office building anywhere in the world that hasn't received local press coverage of its planning and construction? And their opening ceremonies? And maybe the moving-in of their first tenants? If we accept the existence of local coverage as a good reason to ignore WP:GEOFEAT's call for "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", we are going to end up as a directory of virtually every office building in the world. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is just another 25 story office tower. It is not noteworthy even in Charlotte other than the fact that it was the first office tower built in 7 years. It is covered by two typical groundbreaking articles and two announcing the construction. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are an infinite number of "non-notable" buildings with Wikipedia articles about them all over the world. This one is no different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talkcontribs)
"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for retention. Notability IS always required. Please sign your comments.--Rpclod (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to consider redirecting/merging to Charlotte, North Carolina or somewhere else
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:37, 12 August 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=796072400"
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