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

Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys (artwork)

Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys (artwork) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys (artwork)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Advertisement by the artist or somebody working for her; no credible assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • delete frankly promotional and dated. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hunter's Home

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

This is a curiosity. Imo a howlingly dull painting, but not either dull or bad enough to confer notability. What should be done is to redirect this to the perp's biography; however this does not exist other than as a redirect to this thing. TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Paintings don't have "perps" they have painters. Your personal opinion on what is "howlingly dull" is of no consequence here. This nomination is a curiosity. Either there are enough sources to support it's notability or there aren't? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Some paintings have perps, and this is one of them. If it was given to me I'd junk it and re-use the stretchers.TheLongTone (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Intended re-use of the stretchers is not a valid reason for deletion. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This would have been a successful deletion if it had dealt strictly with notability criteria and not subjective aesthetic response.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The 'point is that the painting is not notable. Catalogue entries leave all mustard uncut. And the howlingly dull comment is certainly only my opinion, but would I think be4 substantiated by the tack of any substantial body of critical exegisis of the work. There should be a biog of this artist, altho I note that the BM's biog is limited to dates of birth and death.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not just take a few days off to enjoy this beauty. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mark the train - that should be the visuals arts list, not the arts one. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly notable. The painting & its period & style are not very appealling to modern taste, which is why it is especially useful to have a rare decent article on a representative. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Henri Voordecker This particular painting is not of itself notable: the only reference to it I can find that doesn't derive from us is a book listing every painting in the Rijksmuseum. The article itself is the result of a move from Henry Voordecker, under which name I found essentially nothing; however, searching by "Henri" instead of "Henry" produces enough to justify the stubby bio we have here. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
If by "it" you mean the painting, this is (apparently) still simply an entry in a list. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
No objection. Would seem a sensible move anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What would be "sensible" about such a move? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The creation of an article (an artist) that is likely to be more general and notable than a single work (one of his paintings)? It seems he painted more than one in his lifetime? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The artist is not more notable. The artist is barely notable, as has been pointed out by someone else on this page. But the painting, painted over one hundred years ago, hangs at this time in the Rijksmuseum. The notability of the painting easily exceeds the notability of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Then I guess "barely notable" is good enough for me... along the lines of "Henri Voordecker is generally seen as ntbale only for his 1826 painting Jagerswoning which hangs in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep is the AFD outcome appropriate for moving the article to "Henri Voordecker" (retaining the article). --doncram 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously notable. I would guess that what some are finding "howlingly dull" is what others would identify as domestic tranquility—damn those happy people—and the animals too—what right do the animals have to be happy? Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's obviously not notable; at least it isn't until someone can find some discussion of this painting. I don't know why someone moved the artist's article to the painting, but so far I've only found discussion of him, and not of it. He's (barely) notable, it is not. Howling boredom, or lack thereof, is beside the point. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Voordecker article. And trim. There are a few books that cite the painting, but it's not widely covered in a critical sense. Notability of the work is not established by sources. Not every work an artist makes is notable. For most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Have you done a study on the ratio of notable artworks to notable artists? If not how would you reach the conclusion that "[f]or most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself"? Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Also, let's not forget that there are notable works by unknown artists? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this line of argument supposed to be taking us somewhere? Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I was offering an observation, not a line of argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The point was that, given the totality of an artist's creative output, a very small percentage of their work is tytpically notable on its own. Anthony Gormley is well known for his Angel of the North, as is the work itself, but he has done many non-notable works like the sketch "under my skin" shown here at bottom left. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ooh. Suddenly I feel all at sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Martinevans123, you made me think of Charlie Ray's Plank Piece. Now that is something that deserves an article.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
What are our notability requirements for works of art? I've raised this question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#notability requirements for works of art. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: I did find this 1834 "Notice of new works" where we learn that he had available a painting of chimneysweep, and another of 'a rooster, two chickens and their little ones".96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the preface, this is an exhibition catalogue. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep by moving to Voordecker, and having the painting as its own section within, until the painting itself can be fully fleshed out via WP:GNG / WP:RS. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
But you don't have to have a section on the painting in the Voordecker article because you can simply talk about the artist in an article on the painting. For all intents and purposes the artist is long gone but the painting lives on. From our perspective the painting is more important than the artist. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't think of many notable artists who are not "long gone but the painting lives on." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What is your point? In the absence of notability requirements for works of art we are required to fall back on our own reasoning in reaching these decisions. It is obvious to me that an obscure life, long gone, is not the primary focus here, but rather an object that is displayed in an institution which houses "some masterpieces by Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and Johannes Vermeer." It is ridiculous that such a painting is thought not to meet our standards. The painting is notable. I don't know why this is up for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it is fine for there to exist fairly extensive discussion about individual works by an artist, in an article about the artist. This happens often for long-dead architects, where the list of their architectural works might be almost the entire content in cases where biographical details are not available. Here we have a situation where there doesn't seem to be enough justification for two separate articles, so cover the painting in the artist's article or vice versa. I somewhat prefer to have the article title to be explicitly about the artist, thereby logically allowing for coverage of other paintings by them which might emerge. --doncram 22:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there should be two articles. And from what I gather from this discussion this is the only known surviving painting by this artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
My point is that for most visual artists the fact that their work outlives them (in many cases by centuries) doesn't make them less notable. This painting would simply not exist without Voordecker having painted it. In my own mind this makes Voordecker more important than this one work. Sorry if this seems in some way bizarre to you, or contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't even have guidelines for the notability of works of art. Notability is roughly translatable, in my opinion, into "importance". Yes, the artist painted the painting. But what is the importance of a life after it is over? There aren't even living people who remember this person. But the painting is experienced every day. It has impact at the present time and in perpetuity, until its "life" is over, perhaps in a conflagration or nuclear war. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't remember that other Dutch painter guy. Not personally. Is that because his sunflowers are so famous? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Totally different situation. The life of van Gogh was extensively written about. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are currently seven billion people living on Earth - are you saying that since 99% of those have nothing written about them, they're also not notable or contributing to society as a whole? Alive or dead, the artist created the painting, so the painting should be in the discussion of the artist, in my opinion. I think the conversation has steered away from the focus of the article and the AfD. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I said nothing about 99% of seven billion people not contributing to society as a whole. What we have is the painting, not the artist. The artist is not displayed in a museum. If we have information on him, it should be appended to the article on the painting. Unless the life of the artist has been sufficiently delved into they are assumed to be a person not unlike those who lived in their time and place. That which is known about Voordecker does not place him far outside of the group of people he circulated among. On the other hand, the fact that this one painting has survived a span of time from 1826 to 2017 and now hangs in the Rijksmuseum is a fact that sets it apart from most other paintings. The effort to prove notability for this painting is difficult because it is over 100 years old and its notoriety (apparently) never experienced an upsurge. He (the artist) nor it (the painting) were never "discovered" in the long trajectory from 1826 to 2017. This is more a fluke than anything meaningful. The fact that it has remained undiscovered says little about the painting (or the artist). The fact that it has remained undiscovered merely shows that our (collective) preoccupations have been elsewhere. We should not be passing commentary on the history of art. When we vastly cover Kazimir Malevich and Marcel Duchamp we are following the trail of human interest. But they are not all that has been eventful over the history of art. The great museums of the world know this and Wikipedia should be taking its cue from them. Yes, our rule of thumb and guiding principle is that we must see significant coverage in reliable sources before we grant notability to a subject for a freestanding article. But we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we stubbornly adhere to those rules when a painting is found in a great museum of art. We are merely bowing to the pressure of taste and human interest which has manifested itself in much spilled ink over a long period of time but most importantly in recent decades. We should have the common sense to understand that there are countertrends at all times. We have no criteria for notability that are tailored to address the particulars of works of art. If we did those guidelines would surely make allowances for indications of importance such as being in the collection of an important museum of art. This painting is clearly notable to a sufficient degree to have its own article on Wikipedia. It was not made during the digital age and it has not enjoyed an upswing in popularity. Hence its existence has been beneath the radar of sources that are easily accessible to us sitting at our computers. But those shortcomings should not mean that it is inappropriate for an article. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is simply not a notable painting, because there is no significant coverage of the painting in reliable sources. I really want to object to the notion that every single painting that hangs in a major museum is notable. I see no precedent and no basis in policies or guidelines for that claim. Comments such as "certainly notable" or "obviously notable" without further explanation should be discounted by the closing administrator. The nominator's critical assessment of the painting is irrelevant, and led to unproductive diversion. I do not much like the painting myself but if it was discussed extensively in reliable art history books, I would recommend keeping the article. If the painter is notable, then mention the non-notable painting in his biography, with an image to illustrate his style. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Why do you not like the painting? Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A detailed discussion of my taste in art is not relevant to this AfD debate, Bus stop. If you are curious, we can discuss it on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation to the closing administer is to WP:RELIST the discussion "in an attempt to determine consensus". Sticking to the letter of policy might result in an appending of an obviously important work of art to the name of an artist that is only slightly notable. As far as I can tell policy makes no allowance for works of art aside from WP:GNG. That is not entirely sensible because works of art are a distinct exception to WP:INHERIT in that we certainly should deduce their notability from factors such as the collection in which they reside. At least to some degree we should be relying on the connoisseurship that guides important collections such as the Rijksmuseum which owns this painting. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You keep saying "obvious". If it were "obvious" then we would all be agreeing to it! Sorry, but simple ownership of a work of art by a major museum, or for that matter even exhibition, has never been held here to be sufficient. There needs to be notable discussion of it, and there isn't. There seems to be some consensus that the painter is notable, and it would help a great deal if people would talk recasting this back as his biography, but about the painting we have no discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There are no guidelines for the notability of works of art. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I have emailed the Rijksmuseum concerning any mentions in commentary over the years that they might know of concerning "The Home of a Hunter" by Henri Voordecker. My prediction is that they will mention more than one instance in which this painting is discussed by an art historian or someone else. But perhaps they will not even respond to my email. Time will tell. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Volume 2, by Friedrich Markus Huebner seems to cover him, as one would expect. Coverage is naturally more likely to be in Dutch/Flemish, French or German than English, though Voordecker has a painting in the Royal Collection. Their page also mentions Hunter's Home, which seems to have been his most significant work. There seems to be a number of different versions of the title in Dutch used over the years, not to mention the Henry/Henri issue - I found more hits for "Henry" than "Henri". The Dutch WP has a decent bio (under "Henry"). Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the vegetation is specifically identifiable. I think there are grape vines overhead and I think it is a geranium in the pot. The landing leading into the house seems especially solid and weighty as each stone is seemingly accurately rendered. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Henry Voordecker, or Henri Voordecker if that is more prevalent (formerly Delete) Agree with Cullen328 that this is not a notable painting; I actually happen to like it, but that fact is just as irrelevant as the fact that many of you don't. Half of the already-short article is WP:COATRACKed with the information about Voordecker rather than the artwork itself (cf. The Night Watch, one of the truly notable pieces at the Rijksmuseum); in my opinion this is a pretty strong indication of the lack of depth of coverage. I would also oppose renaming this article to Voordecker, as I can find no evidence that the artist is notable either. The work does hang in one of the great museums of the world, this is true; but as someone who has spent some time at that museum, I would hardly that expect every one of the thousands of works I saw there, let alone their total collection of 1 million objects, would have its own article. They are all significant enough to be displayed there, but the overwhelming majority of them are not notable enough to be sufficiently covered in independent, reliable secondary sources to even warrant a mention on the Rijksmuseum page, let alone have their own article. I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art, but I am fairly certain that this particular one wouldn't meet them. CThomas3 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately your belief that the artist is not notable is so clearly wrong that it greatly detracts from your opinion about the painting! Probably none of the long list of sources given at the Dutch WP bio are in English and free on the web, but there are easily enough that are to demonstrate notability, and several are mentioned above. Plenty of period artists that didn't have entries in Benezit have survived AFD. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I welcome your refutation, but simply saying it is "clearly wrong" doesn't help. Neither does a mention in Benezit Dictionary of Artists; from the website itself, Benezit’s distinguishing features include its entries on obscure artists. Mentions, even a lot of them, don't establish notability, nor do the number of search engine hits you found. I read the (translated) bio you listed as well; there is exactly one reference on that page, which is unfortunately a dead link. The literature section entries, all 17 of them, are dictionary entries or catalog listings. I personally do not see anything that would lead me to believe that he passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST; if you think he does, I encourage you to prove me wrong, and if so I would be happy to change my !vote to Move. CThomas3 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and then move and refocus this to be a biographical article about the artist with appropriate discussions of his artworks. Per the Dutch Wikipedia bio article and the sources listed there, this artist's work is collected in the Rijksmuseum, the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium[1], and the Belgian Royal Collection, and accordingly passes WP:ARTIST#4(d). He was notable when he was collected and per WP:NTEMP remains so. And I can't fathom any basis for concluding that Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of 19th century art would be improved by removing verifiable content about such an artist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I actually thought about writing, after I claimed that I did not see passage of WP:ARTIST, that it would depend on your definition of "several". Some sources do claim "several" is three or more (or even two or more), but my personal rule of thumb is several is more than a few which is more than a couple, which would necessitate at least greater than three. If consensus is that "several" includes three, then I agree with you, but I would also say that we should replace an ambiguous word such as "several" with "at least 3". CThomas3 (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, he is also in the (British) Royal Collection. A birthday present from Victoria to Albert, no less. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Then I would agree he passes WP:ARTIST. CThomas3 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Hunter's Home

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

This is a curiosity. Imo a howlingly dull painting, but not either dull or bad enough to confer notability. What should be done is to redirect this to the perp's biography; however this does not exist other than as a redirect to this thing. TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Paintings don't have "perps" they have painters. Your personal opinion on what is "howlingly dull" is of no consequence here. This nomination is a curiosity. Either there are enough sources to support it's notability or there aren't? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Some paintings have perps, and this is one of them. If it was given to me I'd junk it and re-use the stretchers.TheLongTone (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Intended re-use of the stretchers is not a valid reason for deletion. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This would have been a successful deletion if it had dealt strictly with notability criteria and not subjective aesthetic response.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The 'point is that the painting is not notable. Catalogue entries leave all mustard uncut. And the howlingly dull comment is certainly only my opinion, but would I think be4 substantiated by the tack of any substantial body of critical exegisis of the work. There should be a biog of this artist, altho I note that the BM's biog is limited to dates of birth and death.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not just take a few days off to enjoy this beauty. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mark the train - that should be the visuals arts list, not the arts one. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly notable. The painting & its period & style are not very appealling to modern taste, which is why it is especially useful to have a rare decent article on a representative. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Henri Voordecker This particular painting is not of itself notable: the only reference to it I can find that doesn't derive from us is a book listing every painting in the Rijksmuseum. The article itself is the result of a move from Henry Voordecker, under which name I found essentially nothing; however, searching by "Henri" instead of "Henry" produces enough to justify the stubby bio we have here. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
If by "it" you mean the painting, this is (apparently) still simply an entry in a list. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
No objection. Would seem a sensible move anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What would be "sensible" about such a move? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The creation of an article (an artist) that is likely to be more general and notable than a single work (one of his paintings)? It seems he painted more than one in his lifetime? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The artist is not more notable. The artist is barely notable, as has been pointed out by someone else on this page. But the painting, painted over one hundred years ago, hangs at this time in the Rijksmuseum. The notability of the painting easily exceeds the notability of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Then I guess "barely notable" is good enough for me... along the lines of "Henri Voordecker is generally seen as ntbale only for his 1826 painting Jagerswoning which hangs in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep is the AFD outcome appropriate for moving the article to "Henri Voordecker" (retaining the article). --doncram 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously notable. I would guess that what some are finding "howlingly dull" is what others would identify as domestic tranquility—damn those happy people—and the animals too—what right do the animals have to be happy? Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's obviously not notable; at least it isn't until someone can find some discussion of this painting. I don't know why someone moved the artist's article to the painting, but so far I've only found discussion of him, and not of it. He's (barely) notable, it is not. Howling boredom, or lack thereof, is beside the point. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Voordecker article. And trim. There are a few books that cite the painting, but it's not widely covered in a critical sense. Notability of the work is not established by sources. Not every work an artist makes is notable. For most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Have you done a study on the ratio of notable artworks to notable artists? If not how would you reach the conclusion that "[f]or most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself"? Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Also, let's not forget that there are notable works by unknown artists? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this line of argument supposed to be taking us somewhere? Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I was offering an observation, not a line of argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The point was that, given the totality of an artist's creative output, a very small percentage of their work is tytpically notable on its own. Anthony Gormley is well known for his Angel of the North, as is the work itself, but he has done many non-notable works like the sketch "under my skin" shown here at bottom left. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ooh. Suddenly I feel all at sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Martinevans123, you made me think of Charlie Ray's Plank Piece. Now that is something that deserves an article.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
What are our notability requirements for works of art? I've raised this question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#notability requirements for works of art. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: I did find this 1834 "Notice of new works" where we learn that he had available a painting of chimneysweep, and another of 'a rooster, two chickens and their little ones".96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the preface, this is an exhibition catalogue. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep by moving to Voordecker, and having the painting as its own section within, until the painting itself can be fully fleshed out via WP:GNG / WP:RS. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
But you don't have to have a section on the painting in the Voordecker article because you can simply talk about the artist in an article on the painting. For all intents and purposes the artist is long gone but the painting lives on. From our perspective the painting is more important than the artist. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't think of many notable artists who are not "long gone but the painting lives on." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What is your point? In the absence of notability requirements for works of art we are required to fall back on our own reasoning in reaching these decisions. It is obvious to me that an obscure life, long gone, is not the primary focus here, but rather an object that is displayed in an institution which houses "some masterpieces by Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and Johannes Vermeer." It is ridiculous that such a painting is thought not to meet our standards. The painting is notable. I don't know why this is up for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it is fine for there to exist fairly extensive discussion about individual works by an artist, in an article about the artist. This happens often for long-dead architects, where the list of their architectural works might be almost the entire content in cases where biographical details are not available. Here we have a situation where there doesn't seem to be enough justification for two separate articles, so cover the painting in the artist's article or vice versa. I somewhat prefer to have the article title to be explicitly about the artist, thereby logically allowing for coverage of other paintings by them which might emerge. --doncram 22:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there should be two articles. And from what I gather from this discussion this is the only known surviving painting by this artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
My point is that for most visual artists the fact that their work outlives them (in many cases by centuries) doesn't make them less notable. This painting would simply not exist without Voordecker having painted it. In my own mind this makes Voordecker more important than this one work. Sorry if this seems in some way bizarre to you, or contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't even have guidelines for the notability of works of art. Notability is roughly translatable, in my opinion, into "importance". Yes, the artist painted the painting. But what is the importance of a life after it is over? There aren't even living people who remember this person. But the painting is experienced every day. It has impact at the present time and in perpetuity, until its "life" is over, perhaps in a conflagration or nuclear war. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't remember that other Dutch painter guy. Not personally. Is that because his sunflowers are so famous? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Totally different situation. The life of van Gogh was extensively written about. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There are currently seven billion people living on Earth - are you saying that since 99% of those have nothing written about them, they're also not notable or contributing to society as a whole? Alive or dead, the artist created the painting, so the painting should be in the discussion of the artist, in my opinion. I think the conversation has steered away from the focus of the article and the AfD. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I said nothing about 99% of seven billion people not contributing to society as a whole. What we have is the painting, not the artist. The artist is not displayed in a museum. If we have information on him, it should be appended to the article on the painting. Unless the life of the artist has been sufficiently delved into they are assumed to be a person not unlike those who lived in their time and place. That which is known about Voordecker does not place him far outside of the group of people he circulated among. On the other hand, the fact that this one painting has survived a span of time from 1826 to 2017 and now hangs in the Rijksmuseum is a fact that sets it apart from most other paintings. The effort to prove notability for this painting is difficult because it is over 100 years old and its notoriety (apparently) never experienced an upsurge. He (the artist) nor it (the painting) were never "discovered" in the long trajectory from 1826 to 2017. This is more a fluke than anything meaningful. The fact that it has remained undiscovered says little about the painting (or the artist). The fact that it has remained undiscovered merely shows that our (collective) preoccupations have been elsewhere. We should not be passing commentary on the history of art. When we vastly cover Kazimir Malevich and Marcel Duchamp we are following the trail of human interest. But they are not all that has been eventful over the history of art. The great museums of the world know this and Wikipedia should be taking its cue from them. Yes, our rule of thumb and guiding principle is that we must see significant coverage in reliable sources before we grant notability to a subject for a freestanding article. But we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we stubbornly adhere to those rules when a painting is found in a great museum of art. We are merely bowing to the pressure of taste and human interest which has manifested itself in much spilled ink over a long period of time but most importantly in recent decades. We should have the common sense to understand that there are countertrends at all times. We have no criteria for notability that are tailored to address the particulars of works of art. If we did those guidelines would surely make allowances for indications of importance such as being in the collection of an important museum of art. This painting is clearly notable to a sufficient degree to have its own article on Wikipedia. It was not made during the digital age and it has not enjoyed an upswing in popularity. Hence its existence has been beneath the radar of sources that are easily accessible to us sitting at our computers. But those shortcomings should not mean that it is inappropriate for an article. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is simply not a notable painting, because there is no significant coverage of the painting in reliable sources. I really want to object to the notion that every single painting that hangs in a major museum is notable. I see no precedent and no basis in policies or guidelines for that claim. Comments such as "certainly notable" or "obviously notable" without further explanation should be discounted by the closing administrator. The nominator's critical assessment of the painting is irrelevant, and led to unproductive diversion. I do not much like the painting myself but if it was discussed extensively in reliable art history books, I would recommend keeping the article. If the painter is notable, then mention the non-notable painting in his biography, with an image to illustrate his style. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Why do you not like the painting? Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A detailed discussion of my taste in art is not relevant to this AfD debate, Bus stop. If you are curious, we can discuss it on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation to the closing administer is to WP:RELIST the discussion "in an attempt to determine consensus". Sticking to the letter of policy might result in an appending of an obviously important work of art to the name of an artist that is only slightly notable. As far as I can tell policy makes no allowance for works of art aside from WP:GNG. That is not entirely sensible because works of art are a distinct exception to WP:INHERIT in that we certainly should deduce their notability from factors such as the collection in which they reside. At least to some degree we should be relying on the connoisseurship that guides important collections such as the Rijksmuseum which owns this painting. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You keep saying "obvious". If it were "obvious" then we would all be agreeing to it! Sorry, but simple ownership of a work of art by a major museum, or for that matter even exhibition, has never been held here to be sufficient. There needs to be notable discussion of it, and there isn't. There seems to be some consensus that the painter is notable, and it would help a great deal if people would talk recasting this back as his biography, but about the painting we have no discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There are no guidelines for the notability of works of art. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I have emailed the Rijksmuseum concerning any mentions in commentary over the years that they might know of concerning "The Home of a Hunter" by Henri Voordecker. My prediction is that they will mention more than one instance in which this painting is discussed by an art historian or someone else. But perhaps they will not even respond to my email. Time will tell. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Volume 2, by Friedrich Markus Huebner seems to cover him, as one would expect. Coverage is naturally more likely to be in Dutch/Flemish, French or German than English, though Voordecker has a painting in the Royal Collection. Their page also mentions Hunter's Home, which seems to have been his most significant work. There seems to be a number of different versions of the title in Dutch used over the years, not to mention the Henry/Henri issue - I found more hits for "Henry" than "Henri". The Dutch WP has a decent bio (under "Henry"). Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the vegetation is specifically identifiable. I think there are grape vines overhead and I think it is a geranium in the pot. The landing leading into the house seems especially solid and weighty as each stone is seemingly accurately rendered. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Henry Voordecker, or Henri Voordecker if that is more prevalent (formerly Delete) Agree with Cullen328 that this is not a notable painting; I actually happen to like it, but that fact is just as irrelevant as the fact that many of you don't. Half of the already-short article is WP:COATRACKed with the information about Voordecker rather than the artwork itself (cf. The Night Watch, one of the truly notable pieces at the Rijksmuseum); in my opinion this is a pretty strong indication of the lack of depth of coverage. I would also oppose renaming this article to Voordecker, as I can find no evidence that the artist is notable either. The work does hang in one of the great museums of the world, this is true; but as someone who has spent some time at that museum, I would hardly that expect every one of the thousands of works I saw there, let alone their total collection of 1 million objects, would have its own article. They are all significant enough to be displayed there, but the overwhelming majority of them are not notable enough to be sufficiently covered in independent, reliable secondary sources to even warrant a mention on the Rijksmuseum page, let alone have their own article. I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art, but I am fairly certain that this particular one wouldn't meet them. CThomas3 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately your belief that the artist is not notable is so clearly wrong that it greatly detracts from your opinion about the painting! Probably none of the long list of sources given at the Dutch WP bio are in English and free on the web, but there are easily enough that are to demonstrate notability, and several are mentioned above. Plenty of period artists that didn't have entries in Benezit have survived AFD. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I welcome your refutation, but simply saying it is "clearly wrong" doesn't help. Neither does a mention in Benezit Dictionary of Artists; from the website itself, Benezit’s distinguishing features include its entries on obscure artists. Mentions, even a lot of them, don't establish notability, nor do the number of search engine hits you found. I read the (translated) bio you listed as well; there is exactly one reference on that page, which is unfortunately a dead link. The literature section entries, all 17 of them, are dictionary entries or catalog listings. I personally do not see anything that would lead me to believe that he passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST; if you think he does, I encourage you to prove me wrong, and if so I would be happy to change my !vote to Move. CThomas3 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and then move and refocus this to be a biographical article about the artist with appropriate discussions of his artworks. Per the Dutch Wikipedia bio article and the sources listed there, this artist's work is collected in the Rijksmuseum, the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium[2], and the Belgian Royal Collection, and accordingly passes WP:ARTIST#4(d). He was notable when he was collected and per WP:NTEMP remains so. And I can't fathom any basis for concluding that Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of 19th century art would be improved by removing verifiable content about such an artist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I actually thought about writing, after I claimed that I did not see passage of WP:ARTIST, that it would depend on your definition of "several". Some sources do claim "several" is three or more (or even two or more), but my personal rule of thumb is several is more than a few which is more than a couple, which would necessitate at least greater than three. If consensus is that "several" includes three, then I agree with you, but I would also say that we should replace an ambiguous word such as "several" with "at least 3". CThomas3 (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, he is also in the (British) Royal Collection. A birthday present from Victoria to Albert, no less. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Then I would agree he passes WP:ARTIST. CThomas3 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Museum of Particularly Bad Art

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

A locale event with no obvious notability. Despite the name, not actually a museum. Dysklyver 20:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete with heavy heart, as a lover of high kitch, and a prime member of the target audience of this kind of thing, having a perverse interest in all things fugly. Note that Museum of Bad Art is FA...one of my favs on wiki, but alas this has not gotten sufficient traction and resulting available sources to be kept. Goddamn. Ceoil (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect and trim to a section in Chapel Street, Melbourne, where the event is located, to which it does add some value. Not notable in its own right, but there is salvageable and worthy content here of interest to people. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, it seems a shame to lose the content entirely. Dysklyver 12:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I tacked down several sources. A few are weak, but "the Age", a RS, has written a lot on them. I also found articles from der spiegel and NRK Norwegian radio. There are also many old, likely dead, rescued sources in the EL section which have been hidden, but which do serve to show wide coverage in RS.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well if its been covered by an RS in Norway then its not a local interest only event, which is good. Dysklyver 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to Chapel Street, Melbourne, where this annual event is held. I do see some notability, but it is still somewhat marginal. If this event continues into the future, it can grow up and become its own page, like the Museum of Bad Art. Meanwhile, WP:PRESERVE this information on chapel Street.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge to Chapel Street, Melbourne, it's a coin toss, but if merged try not to lose any of the information. bd2412 T 03:25, 19 October 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 merge to Beadwork. (non-admin closure) J947( c ) (m) 03:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Bead painting

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

Topic does not meet WP:GNG and is unreferenced. I have engaged constructively with the article creator at User_talk:Nick_Moyes#Bead_painting to offer support to them as a new editor, and to explain why I placed a WP:PROD template on the article on 19th September. Use of beads is already briefly mentioned in Mosaic and I cannot find sufficient WP:RS to suggest a standalone article is necessary or warranted for one specific material used to create a picture. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment bead painting is not an assemblage of small pieces of glass... first of all a picture of famous (known) painting is taken and a computer program is used to create a close pattern to the original painting. Then hundreds of thousands of different colors seed beads are collected (not glass pieces, but glass beads of the same shape and size) and each =tine bead is stitched one by one according to the pattern. Because of this bead painting is a very close image to the original famous painting (that's why the name "bead PAINTING) ... instead of oils beads are used, but not just to make a collage, but sewn one by one according to the pattern. I can not explain it any more clearly, why it is not a mosaic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.90.206 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment from nom: User 47.18.90.206 would be very welcome to "explain it more clearly" by citing reliable sources to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY - that might swing it. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Nick Moyes, You wrote to me in regard of "bead painting"... your words: "I can see that you can make a nice picture". This, first of all is disrespect. Second of all it is your personal opinion, it's not even professional one. Any professional in the area of beadwork would never say it's just "I can see you can make a nice picture". It's just like you would say to a Boeing company about Boeing 747, "I can see you can make a nice piece of hardware" . It's not professional opinion. And with the power to delete articles, it just makes Wikipedia your personal playground. Where is justice and professionalism in that? Bead painting is not only unique, it also adds beauty and inspiration to the world. I rest my case. Best Regards, Elena Soldatkina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.90.206 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this thing that is being called "bead painting" is just a version of the every very old practice of embroidery with glass beads. I had a look for sources for "bead painting" and there are actual paintings out there (awaful, awful things), but there did not seem to be any reliable sources at all that mention beads+painting in the same breath. While it might be a gawdy craft practice, without reliable sources, this does not belong here.104.163.152.238 (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:32, 12 October 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.

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Olympia 66

Olympia 66 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Olympia 66" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable building. Likely created as paid editing to promote the architect: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Aedas. Note this deletion rationle is a copy of what Smartse wrote in 2015 proposed deletion, and the article hasn't been improved since. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment There are more sources available than in 2015: SCMP (the best), archdaily and more mentions in the SCMP: [3] [4]. I'm not convinced that those are enough to meet GNG though. I think it may be better to merge and redirect to the developer/owner company (Hang Lung Properties) which doesn't make any mention of the mall. I seem to remember us doing something similar with articles about American malls. SmartSE (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - We don't know the motivation for the article creation, but in its current form it's quite innocuous. It has received substantial coverage from reliable sources.[5][6] And it's the location of the world's largest Apple Store.[7] These are just English sources. It would be willful ignorance to believe there isn't much more coverage in Chinese. --Oakshade (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: It matters not that we don't have articles on Olympia 1 through 65 (why is this?) but 66 appears notable.--Milowenthasspoken 04:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Subject of the article is a non-notable shopping centre. Even the references providing by Oakshade fail to establish notability.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closer - The above user is now stalking me and showing up at AfD's I've participated in to !vote against me and even reverted improvements/adding source to an article in AfD I made. [8]--Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Correction - Removing a notability tag without discussion is not an improvement, it's vandalism and runs counter to the principles of consensus. The fact that you added a mediocre source whilst removing the tag is an unfortunate coincidence, but doesn't offset the undesirable behavior you exhibited.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Anyone is free to look at the diff provided to decide if the above user removed an added source (a solid historical source) disrupting a WP:HEY effort[9], not to mention following me around just to !vote against me[10][11].--Oakshade (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
        • So you removed the dated notability tag with the aim of changing people's votes?   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
          • This is the AfD for the article Olympia 66. If you'd like to discuss the details of the editing of the article Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California) and the alleged effects it has on editors, you need to have that discussion on its talk page or the AfD that is currently occurring there. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Lamela

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

No notability separate from that of the company he inherited. Suggest a Redirect to Estudio Lamela is the best outcome. Cabayi (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • keep. Nomination without merit. Let's delete Barack Obama page because nobody knows him other than as POTUS. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Obama already had established notability as a US Senator & as a state senator. His notability as POTUS overshadows those claims, but they do exist. Obama achieved those claims for himself, he didn't inherit them from his father as Lamela did his business. Lamela has NO notability beyond the company which is already adequately documented. We don't need two copies of the company's portfolio. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want to do nitpicking, Lamela is former president of the Spanish chapter of the Urban Land Institute. However this is irrelevant. Company and person are two different subjects. A person is notable for his deeds. I suggest you to review WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. The guideline says nothing about how many companies a person owns. Just like a scientist makes a single major discovery and suddenly everyone wants to know what else did he do before that. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand I do agree that We don't need two copies of the company's portfolio . Lamela's personal article must list only works in which he immediately participated. But this is a matter of routine article cleanup/restructuring. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and we need to remove articles created in violation of policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 16 October 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=806167501"
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