Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Arts

Scribz Riley

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

Non-notable music producer. The claim of being a Grammy nominee is unsourced, and I'm not sure what association they are using to claim this; they're not listed on the official website of nominees. The only coverage I found was [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm guessing the "Grammy nominee" is going to be as tenuous as something like co-writing and co-producing one song on Khalid's album American Teen which was nominated for Best Urban Contemporary Album. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NM. No significant news coverage. Nothing in his production discography has any entries on major music charts. Newslinger (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NM — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentlemanY (talkcontribs) 13:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NM - Not enough coverage Snowycats (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete : About a non-notable musician , clearly fails WP:NM . Kpgjhpjm 15:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Twister (magic trick)

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability. (Ineligible for PROD, as one was declined in 2006, so bringing it here.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure if I'd call the source used in the article as reliable. I did find this - [2]video[3] - in magicpedia - head twister. The "twister" seems to be a variation on this - and I was able to find this Youtube video - [4] - which seems to match the description in the current Wikipedia article. On Magicepedia - twister is described as a combination of the "head twister" and "The Girl Without A Middle" ... After all this - my basic conclusion is that this doesn't pass GNG and that this is a WP:NOTCATALOG fail - we shouldn't be listing every single possible "magical" illusion - there are endless variations of these.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge with Stage illusions. Vorbee (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge I gave a reasonable shot at trying to find better references, to much the same conclusion Icewhiz came to. It's a shame because I had this watchlisted, but I feel Stage illusions is the proper home for this. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a popular state magic trick and deserves at least a mention. Czolgolz (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • You could have merge it as Icewhiz suggests. On another note supporting to merge. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I actually have not suggested a merge, I !voted delete. In regards to the proposed merge to Stage illusions - it doesn't make sense - as that article is just a list of notable illusions with no text and this illusion is listed there (and the list criteria there seems to be wiki notable illusions). In present form, the article is a borderline WP:V fail (though it seems possible to verify this type of illusion was performed) - and definitely does not demonstrate that GNG is met for this particular trick (and I would add that twister is quite possibly used for other magic tricks that "twist").Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a famous magic trick.GentlemanY (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: That is not a valid reason for !voting keep. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you kidding? That's a perfect reason. Czolgolz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Tanya Riches

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The dozen or so references are primary sources, brief mentions, and generally unreliable sources. Her songwriting and other work has not provided any lasting notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Barbz

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

South Sudanese singer who does not meet the notability requirements for musicians or the general notability criterion. The only claim of importance is that he won "Best music video in 2017". It's not clear what organisation awarded that prize but in any case, the claim seems dubious: the title of the song is not specified, the website of the Juba Monitor (which is the reference cited) does not have any available article using the word "Barbz" and I cannot find any trace on YouTube (or other online video services) of that song. Surely, someone with the means of shooting an award-winning video is capable of posting it online (and would probably do so immediately). Pichpich (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Illuminati (UV group)

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

Analysis of the sources indicates that most are trivial or unreliable. Several concern non-notable awards which don't confer notability. Only sources 8 and 9 are any larger than a sentence. 8 is mostly about the performer dancing with Illuminati. 9 is slightly better, but still no more than a scant paragraph describing a performance.

I tried to Google for more sources and came up with very little. That being said, their name makes them hard to Google, and I can only search in English, so I'll admit there may be sources I could have missed.

Ultimately at this point I don't see enough to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC(talk) 12:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete on account of very-weak-going-on-bad sourcing. Let's just hope WP:TOOSOON and wish them better luck next time.
Sources: The Times of India article mentions the group once, in the list of the acts. The Forbes article has nothing to do with the group; it's about a conference on "India's IT industry bracing up for a 4th industrial revolution"; the group is mentioned once, when describing the entertainment. Then, there is a listing of awards in a "'Live Quotient Awards", in which it's reported that the group won in the category of "Innovative Act". There's a FilmiBeat review of a film called ABCD2 that's entirely irrelevant to the group. In the Bolly Spice article, the group is mentioned once, as back-up to a singer in a TV show. The Hindu mentions the group once in its report of the acts participating in a festival. Indiacom has a report about an ethnic-fashion designer; the group danced in one of his exhibitions. That's the pattern all the way. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Houston Metropolitan Dance Company

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

I'm not finding enough non-local sourcing to indicate that this dance company satisfies WP:N, specifically the portion that requires sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. While there is some press, it is all from the Houston area, which means it fails WP:AUD. ♠PMC(talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Most coverage is in either Dallas, Houston, or Austin newspapers, but in addition to two feature articles in Dance informa magazine (one on the company itself [5] and one on its youth company [6]), it's garnered more-than-passing-mention coverage in nationwide sources Dance Magazine [7]—probably the most popular U.S. dance magazine—and Dance Spirit [8]. In addition, there's plenty of coverage in regional and statewide sources, including Arts + Culture Texas (statewide) [9][10][11][12][13][14] and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (serving Western North Texas) [15][16]. These sources range from almost five years to only a few months old, with consistent coverage in between. For finding more sources, note that the company goes by "METdance" these days.
Overall, WP:AUD's requirement that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary is more than adequately met. FourViolas (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Please note that "necessary" is entirely different from "sufficient." -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The policy states, "not (exists at least one more-than-local source) implies not notable"; the converse, "(exists at least one more-than-local source) implies notable," isn't logically entailed, but is presumed to hold since WP:GNG is met. If the AUD guideline were meant to include some stricter standard, it would have to be specifically stated. In any case, it would be unreasonable to require more than 12 such sources. FourViolas (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the necessary bit is covered as per FourViolas, and the sufficient part is covered by myriad acceptable soures as provided. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

David Art Wales

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

As the article states, David Art Wales is "best known" for creating Guru Adrian (whose Wikipedia page was merged with this one some years ago). He did this in the 1980s while working at Alan, the fanzine of the small Australian radio station Triple Jay — a magazine so obscure I cannot find any record of it at any Australian library.

Wales was then a host on the Australian TV show "Edge of the Wedge" which was cancelled after a few months. Apparently, some American studios expressed interest in making a TV show about Guru Adrian, but none ever did.

Since then, Wales has took part in several pranks and projects. It's hard to tell where the pranks end and the projects begin. Was "Nice Enterprises" a real business? Was his job at the bowling alley real? Did any else take part in Project Naughties? What is the point of the "Prudent Boozers"? And, moreover, who was Guru Adrian? Some of this seems to be puffery, like his girlfriend's burlesque show and his Toyota job. The article claims he launched Cinelan with Morgan Spurlock, but its website makes no mention of him. There is no evidence he influenced the term "noughties". Most of the sources come from a digitised scrapbook, which documents his exploits stretching back to when he was seven, which must have been compiled by Wales himself or someone close to him. And this article and the the old Guru Adrian article have the same feel. I don't think Wales is notable enough for Wikipedia. He was almost famous. He is mentioned at the Triple Jay article, and that is enough to cover his notability and that of his creation, Guru Adrian. Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has three issues. First, many of the sources are self-published reprints of actual published articles (via predigitalarchive.com). This is sub-optimal, as the article subject (presumably) is providing copies of the sources rather than the sources. To Quote WP:N, " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article". We know via these copies of sources that enough sources to establish notability clearly do exist, so GNG is met and the subject is notable. The second issue is that the sources should be the original versions of the actual sources, and the third issue is that there seems to be some promotional editing going on here. But it certainly meets the criteria to be kept.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Which sources establish notability? He has been mentioned in articles or interviewed multiple times for multiple reasons over 40 years. A lot of people are featured in the media occasionally, particularly if they are publicity-seeking, which Wales obviously is. I have been myself. Does that mean all of us, if we keep the clippings etc, become notable enough to have an article?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Publicity-seeking is a non-issue. What matters is whether one got the publicity. If you look at the sources in the article they clearly establish in-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications. And yes, if you have enough clippings of media coverage about yours truly, you can have an article. In-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications is all it takes.96.127.242.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thy Geekdom Con

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

Local (Philadelphia area) fan convention. To quote the PROD tag removed by the article creator, "Very close to CSD A7 - but only local references asserting importance of this event are shown. Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT." Calton | Talk 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Has credible sources from state papers and national anime websites.--Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Note: editor is creator of the article
  • See phrasing above. re: "local sources". And the "national anime websites" are simple event listings and straight-up press releases. --Calton | Talk 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. https://technical.ly/delaware/2015/11/16/thy-geekdom-con-innovation-week/
  2. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/life/2015/11/12/geekdomunitesforonedayconinwilmington/75291430/
  3. http://www.delawarebusinesstimes.com/geekdom-con-ii-grows-stronger-each-year/
Coverage seems WP:DIVERSE. Daask (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep RS is a bit thin, I think borderline keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Eden Fine Art

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

Shamelessly promotional, and sourced to press releases and artsy, a notoriously unreliable source.

  • [17] is an interview with uncredited artsy staff with one of their advertisers. It's a "case study" in disguise, not independent reporting.
  • [18] is a commercial listing
  • [19] is press release, republished by a real-estate magazine
  • [20] co-star is a real-estate news site, the article a regurgitated press release (the same quote appears in multiple sources)
  • [21] The standard writes "Eden Fine Art, which has exhibited works by such leading lights as Andy Warhol and Dorit Levinstein". OK, that made me laugh. Dorit Levinstein is not quite on par with Andy Warhol. Anyway, Eden doesn't represent the estate of Andy Warhol. They may have bought something at auction and resold it.
  • [22] the culture trip is user-contributed content, not a reliable source
  • [23] cls is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures
  • [24] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [25] prnewswire dissemniates press releases
  • [26] is paid content
  • [27] not sure what to make of this. kulturehub has never been used as a source for any wikipedia article. the article is a description of a birthday party/reception with media provided by the subject. Doubt that this is independent reporting.
  • [28] amp3pr is a PR agency
  • [29] more birthday news, undated and uncredited, this time with "exclusive photos we snapped at the Alec Monopoly exhibition", and featuring a youtube video uploaded by Eden. Doubt that this is independent reporting. Those "exclusive photos" photos have exif tags that shows they were made years before the birtday party took place.
  • [30] doesn't mention the subject other than that "Alec Monopoly is flying across the world with Eden Fine Art to tag the French Alps"
  • [31] is an online magazine that publishes event announcements. Eden gets a mention as his gallery, but nothing more.
  • [32] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [33] bellesdemeures is a website that advertises luxury homes
  • [34] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [35] is a "luxury magazine" that republishes press releases
  • [36] is the blog of a hotel
  • [37] artsy is not a reliable source

Vexations (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • artsy, a notoriously unreliable source

    You're referring its listing content, yes? Not editorial? I don't see any threads at RSN czar 23:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Artsy has a mix of content. Their magazine has articles that have a byline and are clearly identified as editorial (their URL starts with https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial. That's not a problem. The bit that affects us most, I think is the artists section, https://www.artsy.net/artists which is designed to look neural and independent, but is really a platform for galleries to sell works. As https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships helpfully explains: Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thx just wanted to confirm czar 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly created for promotional reasons. If the topic is notable, someone else will write objectively about it sooner or later. Deb (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Vexation's analysis, but I also want to put a stake in the ground that I think this effort to purge galleries under NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq is a perfect example of this. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had.

De Sarthe Gallery

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

This business apparently does not satisfy our new and improved notability requirements for companies, and probably didn't meet the old ones either. It carries on the routine business of art dealing, showing works of art in the hope of selling some of them. Some of these works are by notable artists, and so may receive some press coverage, in which there may be some passing mention of the gallery. But a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. I tried to rewrite this article, but couldn't find enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to say anything much about it. Even the South China Morning Post article, which is specifically about the gallery, has very little solid information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I looked at the article as it now stands and came to the opposite conclusion: the sources you found have given enough verifiable detail from reliable sources about this art gallery, over a sufficiently long period of time (2014 - 2018!) to push it over the threshold of notability. Weak keep. Deryck C. 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers—stop burdening us with the same nonsense that you are posting at so many of these discussions: "a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building." That tedious nonsense is largely irrelevant yet you've posted it or a variation of it not only at this article but here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Let's look at the available online sources
    [38] Mostly quotes from Pascal de Sarthe, referring to opening of Hong Kong location.
    [39] cites the place of publication of an exhibition catalogue of Marie Raymond to show that the Gallery had a location in San Francisco.
    [40] does verify that de Sarthe participated in Art Silicon Valley San Francisco (not a notable art fair), with the artists mentioned, some who are indeed very notable but not typically represented by de Sarthe, like Robert Indiana (Paul Kasmin Gallery), Yayoi Kusama (Gagosian Gallery) and Bernar Venet (Paul Kasmin).
    [41] Is used to show that the gallery participated in the Art Basel Hong Kong art fair quotes Pascal de Sarthe as saying "We did very well last year, and it was repeated this year", "We have seen a lot of money coming to the art market" and "Chinese investors and collectors understand that art is a tangible asset." (Note that ABHK had 231 exhibitors in 2105, 239 in 2016, 241 in 2017 and 248 in 2018. Calling that "hundreds" to trivialize inclusion in the selection is not NPOV). But the information provided her is useless, and we already have a list of participants. I'm not convinced that participating in ABHK is even of sufficient encyclopedic interest to merit mention in the article.
    [42] I don't have a subscription to Barron's. The title indicates that the article is not primarily about de Sarthe.
    [43] This article discusses and contextualizes the selection of de Sarthe and is a good example of independent reporting and analysis. This isn't just the gallery talking about itself. Interestingly, it shows that de Sarthe particpated in the 2014 edition of ABHK, the so the statement that it supports is incorrect.
    [44] Not independent, just the gallery talking about itself.
    In summary, I see one source that I think is any good, but it fails to provide enough information to create a comprehensive article. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia. Until we get better sources: 'delete, without prejudice to recreation by an unconnected editor once those sources emerge. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Stev´nn Hall

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

There are certainly sources but I do not believe that they are of sufficient quality to establish notability for a visual artist. There is nothing in the article that suggests that he passes WP:Artist either. Nor does a search throw up anything, other than evidence t TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The only source that is of any use for notability is the Globe and Mail review, and that's just a short review amongst several others. Perhaps the creators.vice.com link is useful, but I can't personally verify that. The Thomas Waugh essay (google books link here) only mentions him in a screen grab and caption. The article's claim that his "satyrical short film 'Bondage Television' deserved broad commentary by the film writer Thomas Waugh in the context of masculine sexual orientation" is not backed up by the cited text itself (nor does it make much sense as a sentence -- Hall's short film deserved more "broad commentary" by "the film writer Thomas Waugh"? Or is Waugh claiming it deserves more broad commentary in general?) Either way, it doesn't seem to appear in the cited text and cannot be verified. If the original author of this Wikipedia article is making some sort of claim about what Waugh has or has not done as a scholar on behalf of Hall, that would be original research and a POV issue. Further searching turns up very little, a few mentions that only confirm Hall as an artist, but nothing that supports WP:GNG (or WP:ARTIST for that matter). freshacconci (✉) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Globe article is good, but it's not enough. Lacks RS to establish GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Imrich Barta

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

No sources to support that he is notable as a person, architect, or painter. It seems that almost nothing on him in the article can be verified. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. The article on Barta has a very interesting history. The article in the English-language WP was created in February 2010. The article in the Slovak-language WP was created two years later, as a translation of the article in English. Until lately in the Slovakian article there was a no footnotes tag [45], removed by an IP, without good reason. This IP has started to translate the article in other WPs ([46], [47]), even recreating it in the Czech-language WP [48], where it had been deleted in 2010 for lacking notability [49], [50]. In the meantime this IP persistently removes the notability, or the no footnote tags from the Barta articles of several language editions, although nothing has changed concerning the sources, references, and verification of its content [51], [52], [53]. Even after I had proposed this article for deletion, this IP tried to remove all tags [54] [55], [56]. All these may point to a cross-wiki job to "force" Barta's notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I dont understand you... you have many sources there, just because you dont understand the language you want to delete entire page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.10.38 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In this version of the article, the latest at this moment:
  • Refs ##1,2,4 [57] are identical, and are just a link to the cover of a book, as it is listed in the webpage of a bookshop.
  • Refs ##3,6 [58] are identical, just mentioning Barta in passing, as one of the architetcs that designed a project ("Naprojektovaný a realizovaný bol v rokoch 1959 až 1963, jeho autormi sú architekti Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta"). While adding this information you didn't even wrote that, οmitting the other name mentioned in the source, by writing in the article that only "Barta was architect of Bratislava´s city quarter called Ružová Dolina between the years 1959-1963" [59], though he was not alone in that [60] according to the source.
  • Ref #5 [61] is a extract from the aforementioned book. The only thing we get to know from this pdf is from the name index of the book (p. 485), that there is a reference to Barta on page 244, but we can't see what kind of reference is that. It is quite interesting that in the "Biografie architektov" (=Biography of architects) section of the book there is a biography of Eugen Barta (p. 465), but not of Imrich Barta (biographies are in alphabetical order: before Eugen Barta is Zoltan Balit, and follows Peter Bauer).
  • in Ref #7 [62] the only thing about Barta is this "5/ 1959-1963: Ružová dolina (1 110 bytov) architekti: Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta", something we already know from Refs ##3,6.
These are the "many sources there". ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that claiming an editor went to the trouble of translating the English Wiki article into Slovenian in order to boost notability is a bit of a stretch.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Well 96.127.242.226, there is no translation into Slovenian (sl:Slovenščina); sk:Slovenčina means Slovak language. The person behind the 178.59…/176.92… etc IPs translated the article in English on Barta into German, Czech, and Italian; the article in the Italian-language WP has been already speedily deleted [63] after tagged by myself. These IPs are all Greek, and their provider is Cyta Hellas, the Greek branch of the a Cyprus telecommunications company. The Greek article on Barta was created by another Cyta Hellas IP [64] (Cyta Hellas has no more than 16% of the Greek telecommunications market), just a line in the beginning, and then another user -who has nothing to do with the abovementioned IPs- translated to Greek the whole article from the English-language WP. Later the 176/178… IPs were also involved. It is very interesting that 176.92.127.118 added to the text (without a source as the rule is) that Barta's Greek origin was from Salonica [65]. In Sk-WP it was also created this stub that has to do with Barta too (the only verifible content about his activities). The Greek IPs were also busy in removing repedately the notability and no footnotes templates from Barta's articles, and adding unreferenced content about his activities in some articles of several language versions of WP [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. ΙP 178.59.10.38 also claimed in a file deletion discussion at Commons concerning Barta that she/he is the owner of a Barta's painting picturing the Blumental Church in Bratislava; Barta, according to the article on him besides an architect he was supposed to be a painter too, who as stated in the article "He [had] created many oil paintings in the style of Van Gogh", and that "After his death his works became exclusive and marketable". All evidence support that there is a "promotional" cross-wiki job undertook by these Greek IPs, and this is either WP:COI, or trolling. I cannot think of something else to expalain facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice detective work. However I do not think such activity is anything to worry about. What happens on other wikis happens. We can handle the notability here without reference to other wikis, even given collusion, conspiracy, meat and sockpuppets should they come along.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This is ridiculous. Imrich Barta was not a famous painter, and did not bring many Americans to visit Bratislava to see works "in the style of Van Gogh". Americans who want to see van Goghs go to the Van Gogh Museum or the Kröller-Müller Museum, not to Bratislava to visit the non-existent Imrich Barta Museum or any of the fine museums of Bratislava, none of who appear to gave an Imrich Barta in their collections. Vexations (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete He seems to have some reliable source coverage as an architect, although none at all as a painter. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and Chalk19's additional sleuthing. A person who fails WP:NPERSON, an architect who fails WP:ARCHITECT, and a painter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Trifecta! -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

De Sarthe Gallery

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

This business apparently does not satisfy our new and improved notability requirements for companies, and probably didn't meet the old ones either. It carries on the routine business of art dealing, showing works of art in the hope of selling some of them. Some of these works are by notable artists, and so may receive some press coverage, in which there may be some passing mention of the gallery. But a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. I tried to rewrite this article, but couldn't find enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to say anything much about it. Even the South China Morning Post article, which is specifically about the gallery, has very little solid information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I looked at the article as it now stands and came to the opposite conclusion: the sources you found have given enough verifiable detail from reliable sources about this art gallery, over a sufficiently long period of time (2014 - 2018!) to push it over the threshold of notability. Weak keep. Deryck C. 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers—stop burdening us with the same nonsense that you are posting at so many of these discussions: "a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building." That tedious nonsense is largely irrelevant yet you've posted it or a variation of it not only at this article but here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Let's look at the available online sources
    [71] Mostly quotes from Pascal de Sarthe, referring to opening of Hong Kong location.
    [72] cites the place of publication of an exhibition catalogue of Marie Raymond to show that the Gallery had a location in San Francisco.
    [73] does verify that de Sarthe participated in Art Silicon Valley San Francisco (not a notable art fair), with the artists mentioned, some who are indeed very notable but not typically represented by de Sarthe, like Robert Indiana (Paul Kasmin Gallery), Yayoi Kusama (Gagosian Gallery) and Bernar Venet (Paul Kasmin).
    [74] Is used to show that the gallery participated in the Art Basel Hong Kong art fair quotes Pascal de Sarthe as saying "We did very well last year, and it was repeated this year", "We have seen a lot of money coming to the art market" and "Chinese investors and collectors understand that art is a tangible asset." (Note that ABHK had 231 exhibitors in 2105, 239 in 2016, 241 in 2017 and 248 in 2018. Calling that "hundreds" to trivialize inclusion in the selection is not NPOV). But the information provided her is useless, and we already have a list of participants. I'm not convinced that participating in ABHK is even of sufficient encyclopedic interest to merit mention in the article.
    [75] I don't have a subscription to Barron's. The title indicates that the article is not primarily about de Sarthe.
    [76] This article discusses and contextualizes the selection of de Sarthe and is a good example of independent reporting and analysis. This isn't just the gallery talking about itself. Interestingly, it shows that de Sarthe particpated in the 2014 edition of ABHK, the so the statement that it supports is incorrect.
    [77] Not independent, just the gallery talking about itself.
    In summary, I see one source that I think is any good, but it fails to provide enough information to create a comprehensive article. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia. Until we get better sources: 'delete, without prejudice to recreation by an unconnected editor once those sources emerge. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Eden Fine Art

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

Shamelessly promotional, and sourced to press releases and artsy, a notoriously unreliable source.

  • [78] is an interview with uncredited artsy staff with one of their advertisers. It's a "case study" in disguise, not independent reporting.
  • [79] is a commercial listing
  • [80] is press release, republished by a real-estate magazine
  • [81] co-star is a real-estate news site, the article a regurgitated press release (the same quote appears in multiple sources)
  • [82] The standard writes "Eden Fine Art, which has exhibited works by such leading lights as Andy Warhol and Dorit Levinstein". OK, that made me laugh. Dorit Levinstein is not quite on par with Andy Warhol. Anyway, Eden doesn't represent the estate of Andy Warhol. They may have bought something at auction and resold it.
  • [83] the culture trip is user-contributed content, not a reliable source
  • [84] cls is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures
  • [85] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [86] prnewswire dissemniates press releases
  • [87] is paid content
  • [88] not sure what to make of this. kulturehub has never been used as a source for any wikipedia article. the article is a description of a birthday party/reception with media provided by the subject. Doubt that this is independent reporting.
  • [89] amp3pr is a PR agency
  • [90] more birthday news, undated and uncredited, this time with "exclusive photos we snapped at the Alec Monopoly exhibition", and featuring a youtube video uploaded by Eden. Doubt that this is independent reporting. Those "exclusive photos" photos have exif tags that shows they were made years before the birtday party took place.
  • [91] doesn't mention the subject other than that "Alec Monopoly is flying across the world with Eden Fine Art to tag the French Alps"
  • [92] is an online magazine that publishes event announcements. Eden gets a mention as his gallery, but nothing more.
  • [93] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [94] bellesdemeures is a website that advertises luxury homes
  • [95] artsy is not a reliable source
  • [96] is a "luxury magazine" that republishes press releases
  • [97] is the blog of a hotel
  • [98] artsy is not a reliable source

Vexations (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • artsy, a notoriously unreliable source

    You're referring its listing content, yes? Not editorial? I don't see any threads at RSN czar 23:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Artsy has a mix of content. Their magazine has articles that have a byline and are clearly identified as editorial (their URL starts with https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial. That's not a problem. The bit that affects us most, I think is the artists section, https://www.artsy.net/artists which is designed to look neural and independent, but is really a platform for galleries to sell works. As https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships helpfully explains: Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thx just wanted to confirm czar 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly created for promotional reasons. If the topic is notable, someone else will write objectively about it sooner or later. Deb (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Vexation's analysis, but I also want to put a stake in the ground that I think this effort to purge galleries under NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq is a perfect example of this. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had.

Untitled (Rosati)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability: no indepth independent coverage, only references are as part of a collection. GRuban (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERTHINGS not relevant.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled (Patel)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, no indepth coverage in independent sources. GRuban (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Namio Harukawa

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

Non-notable artist. Shritwod (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It's had 108k views in 3 years, which strongly suggests notability. Do we have a porn/erotica sorting list? This is where he fits. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the sourcing does not show notability. We do not keep articles based on how often they are viewed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest merging somewhere, but I am not sure where. We don't seem to have a list.Seraphim System (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
He's on a couple of lists already - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Namio_Harukawa. Body worship seems to be the only article. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Meessen De Clercq

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to passing mentions / WP:SPIP sources. Created by a SPA with three edits and edited by a sock farm, such as Special:Contributions/Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. Notability is not inherited from the notable artists the gallery has represented. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Suject fails WP:N, never mind WP:NCORP. And socks never help the cause, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an ongoing concern exhibiting artwork in Brussels, Belgium. If we look at the article on Filip Gilissen we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Thu Van Tran we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Adam Henry (artist) we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Bostwick we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Pickering we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Maarten Vanden Eynde we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Jordi Colomer we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Benoît Maire we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Susan Collis we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Ellen Harvey we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on José María Sicilia we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Leon Vranken we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at an article named Brussels Gallery Weekend, we find one of the galleries participating in that annual event is Meessen De Clercq gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I warned them there should be a limit to the use of the copy/paste function. Face-smile.svg -The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable. However notability is not inherited, even if you repeat the sentence a lot.104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • An art gallery virtually only receives notability from the art exhibitions shown there and from the art gallery's participation in other art-related events. This is not inheritance. Rather this is an art gallery's raison d'être. There are few other reasons that an art gallery could be reported upon in sources. Perhaps a gallery occupies a renovated disused meatpacking plant or power station and sources report on that. But there is little else that sources are likely to report on. Perhaps a reliable source will comment on the spaciousness of an art gallery or the quality of its lighting. But coverage of such factors are not the mainstay of coverage in sources of art galleries. We should want to know whether or not a schedule of art exhibitions are held at an art gallery. That should be our primary metric for determining notability for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And by the way, the artists who show there do not even have to be notable. There is no argument whatsoever that galleries WP:INHERIT notability from artists. You say "As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable." It is not the notability of the artists that matters here—it is support in sources for an exhibition schedule. Reliable sources establish for us the existence of a regular exhibition schedule by publishing criticism and other commentary on art exhibitions held at art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I had a good poke around the Interwebs, Gnews and Gbooks, and could nor find any information in RS about their history. Almost all entries in RS are name checks saying "artist X , of Messen de Clerq".104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The gallery exists and indeed sources do take note of the gallery's existence, but they do so primarily in the form of the art exhibitions that take place there: Leon Vranken: Great plans, random ideas - at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly: the individual artists they exhibit are notable, but the gallery is not.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It would not matter whether the individual artists that the gallery shows are notable or not. Some of the artists are not notable. The gallery is notable if sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art. Our question is: do sources cover art exhibitions at the art gallery? An art gallery hosts the artworks of artists. If the gallery is ignored then it is non-notable. But if reliable sources critique the art exhibitions, the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You're inventing policy for notability when you say they're notable if "sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art." There's a bus near my house that lots of notable people ride. it has a regular schedule of carrying notable people, in fact.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, here is an interview with the two principals of Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This gallery also participates in other art exhibitions elsewhere: "Gallery Meessen De Clercq explores the relation of a Dutch Golden Era painting and the gallery’s contemporary artists at Brussels Art Fair BRAFA on 23–31 January 2016." Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Meessen De Clercq at Brafa Art Fair Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "By 2018, Meessen De Clercq will be able to look back on seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows and twelve publications (often first monographs on emerging artists). The gallery has participated in forty-seven international art fairs, including Art Basel, Frieze New York and Fiac." Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This last item, for example, is two sentences. There is simply no in-depth coverage of the gallery itself.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
"Seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows" suggests the existence of an exhibition schedule. In and of itself this does not establish notability for the gallery. But critical notice of those exhibitions in reliable sources establishes notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I know what you are getting at, and It is admirable, but the notability fo the artists reviewed in the exhibition reviews does not establish the notability of the gallery. the reviews are, to put it plainly, abotu work that the artist insets into the gallery space, and not about the gallery space. The reviews do not go on at length abotu the history of the gallery, its walls, its operations and the aesthetic quality of its floors. They talk about the artist's intentions, the artist's work and the subjective reaction of viewers to that work. You know that. And again, notability is not inherited.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No one is saying that the notability of the artists in the reviews establishes the notability of the gallery. We are concerned with the notability of the gallery, not the notability of the artists. And we are concerned with the amount of interest reviewers show for art galleries. They take notice of art galleries by writing about art exhibitions. They are not going to write about the floors, the walls, or even the history of the gallery. Why would they? The owners of the gallery choose which artists to show. In so doing they are promoting a type of art. They become known for their particular "taste" in art. Some galleries are more eclectic than others. But art comes in an extraordinarily wide range of forms, and successful galleries inevitably are tastemakers. There is a degree of frisson surrounding the most successful art galleries. The public is not interested in the physical plant of an art gallery. It is silly to expect that reliable sources are going to cover the stability of the staircases or even the lighting, which is an important factor in a good exhibition space. It is inarguably the relevance or the irrelevance of the artists that a gallery chooses to represent that either garners reviews or not. All three parts work together: reviewers, galleries, artists. They either feed into one another or they deaden one another. Contrary to your argument, we are concerned with the reviews of art shows at art galleries. The reviews of shows at art galleries establish the notability of the art gallery provided the reviews are in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You're just inventing a new policy for notability. However we already have a policy for notability. All we need are ind-depth sources for the gallery, and the AFD will close as keep. Unfortunately these sources only exist for the artists who show there, and not the gallery. AND, before you port another long reply, can we just agree to disagree, and let others contribute? Someone should actually hat all this back and forth as it contributes nothing to the AfD.104.163.157.79 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You keep on saying that we need sources for the gallery when we already have sources for the gallery. A review of an art show at a gallery is a source for the gallery. The art show is not being held on the street. The art show is not being held in a vacant lot. The art show is not being held in the artist's studio. You refuse to understand that the art show is being held in the art gallery and that the gallerist chose the artist whose work is being shown. The gallery does many other things too but it is the gallerist's taste in art that defines the art gallery. Art is not a commodity. If the gallery were exhibiting sugar there might not be much choice involved—any artist that produces sugar would be as good a choice as any other artist that produces sugar. But art is greatly varied. If 100 artists would like to have an exhibition of their work in a given gallery, the gallery might only choose one of them. But it is that choice that will make the difference between a financially successful gallery and one that loses money. You don't seem to recognize that an exhibition is not just an artist's exhibition but a gallery's exhibition too. There is just as much if not more at stake for the art gallery as there is for the artist. You are not giving credit to the gallery. A substantial review of an exhibition is a credit to the gallery. For our purposes a substantial review or critique of an art exhibition in an art gallery contributes to the notability of the gallery in addition to the notability of the artist. What would you like to hear reviewed—that the gallery has nice restrooms? An art gallery could be held in some cases on derelict property. The taste in art of the gallerist is important. An art gallery could probably be held on a garbage dump. A reviewer of that art show would evaluate the art and such a review would help to establish notability for the "Garbage Dump Art Gallery". Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Messen de Clerq has put on a show of Catalonian conceptual artist Ignasi Aballi, whose works were the subject of Madrid’s Reina Sofía retrospective in 2015-16. On view in the exhibition, titled ‘Translations’, are a number of works on paper, some of which are reminiscent of Josef Albers’s colour studies: grids of different tones marked with phrases such as ‘Peacock Blue’ and ‘Raw Sienna’. Aballi’s ‘Translations of a Japanese dictionary of colour combinations (Part II)’ (2018) is an intriguing series in which colour and language are transposed – and transposed again. One highlight is the 90-minute video Repaint Miró (2016), in which we see a restorer cover a bronze sculpture by Joan Miró in white, then re-paint it in its original colours."[99] This is a review of an art exhibition presented by Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Belgian artist Fabrice Samyn, who is briefly mentioned in our article Ariane de Rothschild Art Prize. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Jonathan Monk. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
All this review says about the AFD subject is "Jonathan Monk “Without” at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels". Stop posting garbage sources please, and read WP:N.104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The name of the show is "Without" and it does not contain the work of Jonathan Monk. I stand corrected. It instead shows the work of other artists whose work somehow relates to the work of Jonathan Monk. That is the theme. I am not going to try to defend the concocted themes that art galleries come up with for shows. This is a business and they are promoters and salesmen. But this review is in "Mousse magazine", which may be a reliable source, and such a review would tend to support the notability of the gallery. I am not arguing that the notability of the artists shown in the reviewed exhibition is indicative of notability for the art gallery, but the artists in this exhibition include the following notable names: Robert Barry (artist), Alighiero Boetti, Chris Burden, Dan Graham, Sol LeWitt, Bruce Nauman, and Allen Ruppersberg. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the number of Wikipedia articles mentioning "Mousse magazine" it is probably a reliable source. We have 66 articles mentioning "Mousse magazine". Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Japanese photographer Rinko Kawauchi. "The exhibition presents a collection of forty photographs portraying everyday life in the vicinity of Kumamoto, a town in southern Japan. The artwork is based on real incidents and experiences of the locals, with each photograph capturing the right moment at the right place to showcase the related stories. Kawauchi's generous work borrows phrases from the local people and embodies the Japanese aesthetic and conceptual notion of ‘the moving intimacy of things.’ In her second solo show at the gallery, the artist pushes the stereotypical boundaries of ‘good photograph’ and attempts to reveal the impermanence of the world and lifecycles along with showcasing natural phenomena as metaphors of human emotions." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, you're bludgeoning the discussion now. everyone knows what you think here. Let some ohters contribute.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Meessen De Clercq is an art gallery in Brussels, one of the most important art capitals of the world. "Brussels Leads The European Contemporary Art Scene In 2017" Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Please stop. The arguments you are giving are very poor. Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria. I tend to agree with you that galleries should be notable by the artists they show, but this is NOT the Wiki policy here. So please just stop. 104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You cannot possibly "agree" with me on a position that I did not take. I did not say that "galleries should be notable by the artists they show". I did not say anything remotely like that. You also say "Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria." Why introduce new terminology? What is a "hot capital"? And I never said that the status of the city in which a gallery was located was a notability criteria for art galleries. I was merely observing the fact that Brussels at this time is a vital center of the worldwide contemporary art market. I found that interesting and I hoped others would as well. Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You are just arguing for the sake of argument. Please stop.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment to 104.163.157.79—Our WP:GNG policy says the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I would add that reviews of art shows are reviews of galleries provided the art show takes place in the art gallery or is under the auspices of the art gallery but taking place on other premises. This is the work of art galleries being taken note of by reliable sources. Many other factors would apply in ultimately determining notability but they tend to be more minor factors. But your basic argument that commentary in reliable sources of the art shows mounted by art galleries does not confer notability on art galleries is incorrect. How can you possibly argue that the work of an art gallery is INHERITED from artists? Doesn't the gallery play a role in bringing the exhibition into existence? Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment to 104.163.157.79—Don't you realize that your argument is wrong? We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken. Yet we are not going to have an article on an active and involved art gallery in one of the most important art cities in the world? The notability is in the reviews of the shows mounted by the art galleries. It is by design that art galleries themselves do not promote their physical plant. A museum would be written about in terms of its physical structure and the infrastructure that supports it or led to its creation. But an art gallery is a much more fly-by-night operation. There are actually "popup" art galleries. They rent a space for three months and hold an exhibition. But even those in long-term operation are not stable entities like museums. It should be noted that our coverage is presently problematic. Art gallery presently redirects to "Art museum". In significant ways these are two different types of institutions. Consequently notability requirements are different. But you seem to want a one-size-fits-all guideline for notability. It does not work. If on the other hand a museum had no sources reporting on the museum itself, you would be correct—it would likely be a candidate for deletion. I think greater sourcing requirements should be expected of museums than of art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Your IP friend here again, my IP reset. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Time to put a sock in it and have the good grace to allow others to contribute. 198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi IP friend. You have the wrong idea about WP:INHERIT concerning this article and unfortunately you aren't willing to discuss that. You seem to think that a review of an art show is solely a review of artwork and of an artist. But an art exhibition is the culmination of many steps that an art gallery is instrumental in bringing about. These steps are too numerous to list but the very existence of an art gallery is a prerequisite to an art show. Reliable sources write reviews of artwork and artists but this should be understood as evidence of a gallery's notability. You do not have to dogmatically stick to a policy that is inapplicable in a given instance. Though a source is addressing an art show at an art gallery, such a source is tending to confer notability on an art gallery. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but you are overtaking the whole AfD process! And using unacceptable arguments to boot, such as WP:OSE ("We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken," etc). The IP contributor makes a valid point: Notability is not inherited. If Edith Piaf stayed in the Grand Hôtel de Clermon, this by itself does not make the hotel notable. Independent notability requires reliable sources testifying to the subject's own, independent notability.
You disagree, obviously. It's understood. No need to bludgeon the discussion and fill up space with more and more links about shows, artists, and so on. It's time to allow others to contribute here. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no problem with the Notability is not inherited policy—where it is applicable. But it is not applicable here. A source which reviews an art show at an art gallery tends to provide support for the notability of the art gallery hosting that show. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. But this is our point of contention. I would appreciate having a civil discussion in which you address that point instead of dismissing it out of hand. WP:INHERIT is generally applicable. It is not applicable here and we are not required to degrade the encyclopedia in order to hew to the letter of policy. And you should not be telling me not to "fill up space with more and more links about shows" because those links to shows tell us that this is an active art gallery that is involved in the contemporary art world in a city with a very vital art scene. I welcome constructive dialogue, The Gnome. Bear in mind that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about notability anymore. It's about you intentionally bludgeoning and ruining the Afd process, after multiple requests to step back.198.58.156.206 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
At this point I've given up all hope of you engaging in conversation. All you are doing is complaining. You have one and only one argument. It is simplistic and it is incorrect. That argument is that notability is not inherited, enshrined in our policy of WP:INHERIT. Just because an art gallery is not mentioned (actually it always is mentioned, but only minimally) in a review of an exhibition, that is not an indication that the source is not referencing the gallery. It need not be referenced directly, in order to be referenced. If you want to engage in this deletion discussion you can address that point. We have policies and guidelines for everything. A great one here that you should be citing is WP:SATISFY. Why stop at WP:BLUDGEON? I'm not opposed to our policies and guidelines but they can be misused. Reviews of exhibitions logically reference art galleries even if they don't literally reference art galleries. That is my argument. That is the point that I am making. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I think everyone reading this understood your point the first time you replied with the repeating sentences. At this point it would be very CIVIL of you to put a sock in it and let others reply. You have, sadly, bludgeoned your view mercilessly here. Grow up and let others have a say. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I understood your main point as soon as you made it, Bus stop. And accepted it as legitimate, though erroneous IMVHO. The avalanche of sources only support the legitimacy of your point, i.e. it exists and it's out there. Nothing is added by piling up more links and text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
If it is "erroneous" then you should be able to articulate why it is erroneous. That is what is conspicuously missing from your input into the above discussion, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please make your points citing WP:PAG where possible and move on. This discussion is already deep into WP:TLDR territory. @ Bus stop Your WP:Bludgeoning in this discussion has been extremely discourteous, bordering on disruptive. Please stop.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Ad Orientem—as you probably know there isn't specific language in WP:PAG pertaining to the notability of art galleries (or at least none that I'm aware of) therefore the adaptation of existing PAG may be called for. I think that prompts the unusual amount of discussion seen above and the high volume of input from me. Bus stop (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The nomination (and supporting delete) are flawed because galleries do indeed gain notability from the artists they exhibit - just as football player gain notability from the teams they play on. Galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artworks, but the most important can have a great effect on the local art scene or even the global art world. This one has exhibited enough notable artists to narrowly make the cut imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Saying that galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artwork is like saying Warren Buffett is just a stock-picker. This is especially true of cutting edge, contemporary artwork, which is another point I neglected to mention, applicable to Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I note that the creator of the article has a username, User:Absens2008 that is taken from the title and year of first exhibition of the gallery. If there is undisclosed paid editing, I'd like to see any conflict of interest resolved before closing this AfD. I have the impression that the gallery was involved in creating an article about itself. The article was previously deleted as unambiguous advertising nominated for G11 again after recreation, but that speedy was declined then declined by blocked sockpuppet. Another contributor who appears to have a CoI is User:Anthropocene2015 See for example [100] Vexations (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The gallery seems notable...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources that would make it possible to write a factual, neutral article are simply not there. The online ones we have are mostly useless:
[101]is the gallery itself, and cannot be used to establish notability
[102] is an interview with the owners
[103] is an interview with the owners
[104] is a dead link
[105] is a list of participating galleries in the Frieze art fair. It's worth noting that German Wikipedia considers galleries participating in such art fairs for a number of years notable. But other than Meessen De Clercq particpated in The 2012 edition of the Frieze Art Fair, it doesn't tell us anything.
[106] is a mention, and again it doesn't really tell us anything other than Ignasi Aballí has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.
[107] is a commercial gallery that mentions thtaone of their artists has aso exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. The only statement that we can get from that would be, again, Susan Collins has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.
[108] is a listing, not editorial content. This kind of material is submitted by the gallery.
[109] is a little better; it has byline, Heini Lehtinen, a contributor. It can't be a review though, since it's dated Jan 20, 2016 and the exhibition it describes took place from 23–31 January 2016. An actual review, albeit very brief is in [110].
[111] "Starting November 8th, the gallery Meessen De Clercq is pleased to present...". That's a press release.
Still looking into the other sources that are listed, but not linked that were added by the IP address 91.183.239.198 that only ever contributed to articles about or related to the subject and (surprise?) geolocates to Brussels. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
IMVHO, the succinct and trenchant forensics by Vexations above carry the day. Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but WP is not a gallery of indiscriminate exhibits. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
At WP:TPYES I find "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I have The Gnome commenting "Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but..." and "Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but..." In my opinion The Gnome should confine their comments to content and not speculate about the motivations of other editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course I will. No need to invoke policy; it's a matter of common courtesy. I apologize. I tried to express sympathy but failed. The rest of my remarks (i.e. comparative assessment of sources) remain as they are. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Bus Stop's information and adequate defense for the notability of this gallery. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. However, it is NOT notable in Wikpedia's very special sense of notable: having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have spent hours trying to fix the sources listed, and have had nothing but difficulties. The list of sources is impossible: The newspapers cited, La Libre Belgique and Le Soir both have extensive archives, and one would expect to find the articles there. Even checking ALL the articles ever published by the authors cited yielded nothing usable. I managed to dig up one source that I can't cite because it uses a blacklisted link, Collect, that quotes the owners on why they participated in the BRAFA art fair. There is a possibility that an article Brusselse topgaleries (deel 5): Galerie Meessen De Clercq by Patrick Auwelaert provides the kind of analysis that would support an article, but I have no access to that source. The article is part of a series that also covers Galerie Jan Mot (part 10), Galerie Rodolphe Janssen (part 9), Galerie Nathalie Obadia (part 8), ( Almine Rech Gallery (part 7), Galerie Greta Meert (part 6), Galerie Daniel Templon (part 4), Galerie Xavier Hufkens (part 3), Albert Baronian (part 2) and Roberto Polo Gallery (part 1). To see who these galleries represent, take a look at User:Vexations/lists/Galleries, it ought to give some idea about their significance. Personally, I wish it wasn't so difficult to source articles like this. I would like to see articles on art galleries, and I think that linking artists to galleries and vice versa helps to build the web, rather than create walled gardens. But ignoring the dearth of sources is not the solution.
Then there is the involvement of the gallery itself in the creation of the article and the creation of the articles on the artists that it represents. The editors Anthropocene2015 and Absens2008 are sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors and their creations might have been eligible for deletion under G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, had they been caught in a timely manner. Both should have been blocked. An AfD is no place to punish a subject for their efforts to promote themselves, but it is appropriate to make one thing very clear: Unless you provide the sources so that the content can be verified and summarize their content from a neutral POV and have the article scrupulously reviewed for verifiability and neutrality (at AfC), there can be no article. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. 👏👏👏 Brava, @Vexations—spot on and kudos for putting in the labor. Can I try to help with the sources you mentioned? Is this Collect? If you could clarify re: the La Libre Belgique and Le Soir refs, by "nothing usable" did you mean that the content was meager or that you weren't able to find some of the citations? I'll look into getting the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen as it seems @Absens2008 isn't returning with a copy. czar 23:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The Collect referred to here is a Belgian magazine. Their website is http://www.collectaaa.be. The issue is Hiver 2015 Nº 459. I found it through a google cache of the BRAFA website, but couldn't post that here because that google URL is blacklisted. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoh9nr84fcAhVCbKwKHR-cAWsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brafa.art%2Fmedia%2FAntiquesFairBeMedia%2FPressClips%2F2016-2-23-14-24-44_BE%2520-%25202015.12-2016.01%2520-%2520COLLECT%2520AAA%2520(fr).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QBuVvxWXEDHG7iexUDFCF. I'm not sure how to make that URL work. 12:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice—appears to work without the Google cache URL elements (the Google cache isn't a permanent link), but questionable whether BRAFA holds the rights to host this excerpt, no? & could you clarify re: La Libre Belgique and Le Soir? czar 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
For La Libre Belgique for example, the article cites Lorent, Claude (2011-10-06). "Tout, de la cave au grenier". La Libre Belgique. So I looked at all the articles by Claude Lorent that La Libre Belgique has in it's archives http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?artefactFilter=article%2Cfolder%2Cgallery%2Cvideo&section=&subsection=&dateFilter=allDates&to=2018-07-05&from=2001-01-01&sort=&query=Claude+Lorent but nothing resembles the title, "Tout, de la cave au grenier", nor do they have any article published by him for the given date, 2011-10-06. I also queried the archive for the search term "Meessen De Clercq", but that yielded nothing http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?query=%22Meessen+de+Clerq%22. I tried the same type of search for matching either an author/date or article title (Legrand, Dominique. "Galeriste, sans chloroforme".) and simply looking for articles about the subject at Le Soir, which gives http://www.lesoir.be/archives/recherche?word=%22Meessen%20de%20Clercq%22&sort=date%20desc&datefilter=lastyear&form_build_id=form-kLAE3Up-EEgL1FZOQsqAdX67H4jFaU4bfcsIcNUVDoI&form_id=dpidamwidgets_damsimplesearch_content_type_search_form I referred to that as "nothing usable". Vexations (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Yes, that's unfortunate. Sometimes newspapers don't put their full archives online, but without volume/issue metadata, there's no reasonable way to follow up on this... if the listed citations were ever even in print? Ulrich's does not list the two papers as being indexed in online databases, so no help there either: WYSIWYG. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. czar 09:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Vexations, Twemoji 1f4e8.svg sent the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen. It looks solid, but I defer to a native speaker. czar 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am willing to accept the argument that coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer. I would also remind everyone that there are many exceptions to GNG in areas where GNG doesn't work well, such as species of living things, high schools and high-performance athletes. We may need another exception for art dealers analogous to "played at least one game in the major leagues", which means that we will have to define "major league" art dealers in the same way that we have a list of fully professional association football leagues. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 22:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my opinion, Vexations' first sentence summarized my keep argument: The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. In my opinion, and as discussed by Eastmain above, there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG, and I believe this subject is one. The article needs cleanup and improvement, but is notable enough to remain. --HunterM267 talk 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    It is somewhat disconcerting that a statement from an anonymous nobody on the internet (me) should be used to decide the notability of a subject. I can't just go and write the article based on my personal knowledge and experience, can I? Follow the sources. If they exist, show us where they are. (Note: Auwelaert 2014 goes a long way towards the kind of coverage that would satisfy the GNG) Vexations (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Vexations: Thank you for your response - I agree with your comments, and apologize for the lack of depth of my initial statement. Prior to making my comment, I reviewed the references and their links on the article - however, after a more thorough review of the sources listed, I find that the majority of them are primarily trivial mentions of the gallery as a venue for artists (such as here and here). Given this, along with my original statement above, I find that I could largely see the arguments made for both delete and keep. In my review of AfDs, I prefer to prioritize what the WP:RS say, in accordance with our WP:PAG. I cannot deny that this subject, as important to the international art world as it may be, lacks the verifiable references defined in the WP:GNG. For that reason, I cannot, in good conscious, maintain a keep vote, and I have struck my previous statement. However, I also do understand the rationale presented by Eastmain above (re: that the coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer), but lack the knowledge of the details of art galleries to be able to properly formulate an opinion. --HunterM267 talk 16:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment: I don't believe that there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG is a valid argument in a deletion discussion. The sources either exist or they don't. The entity in question is a private, for-profit company and we need to be mindful of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vexations, what do you think of the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen article? czar 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: I think it goes some way towards establishing notability. It is one of the few sources that is actually about the gallery. It was written in 2014, six years after the gallery was founded, so it discusses a relatively "young" gallery. It is mostly an interview, and contains no independent analysis by the author. I'm not quite sure what it could be used for. It makes very few factual statements. It cites some very broad remarks by the owners about who they like to work with, like "The personality of the artist is important. It has to click. It has to be someone who believes in his future." I have no idea how you would turn such quotes into something encyclopedic. The problem, I think, is that at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style, tried to function as a platform (publisher, agent) more than a pure sales organization, and didn't really have much of a history. Vexations (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Vexations—you say "at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style". I don't know how you know this. What "movement or style" is it linked to now? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I could have phrased hat better. I meant to say that there is nothing in the text of the article by Auwelaert that gives its readers any indication about what kind of work the gallery shows. Their programming is not based on any specific criteria. So you couldn't say, for example, that the gallery specializes in works by artists who have something concrete in common, like Greta Meert, who specializes in minimal and conceptual art, other than "conceptual artists who work with various media". In fact, the only artist from their roster who gets a mention is Fabrice Samyn (Leon Vranken and Ellen Harvey get a photo credit).
  • Comment I think this effort to delete galleries under a literal interpretation of NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion here is a perfect example of this. Hunting for articles or reviews that talk about the gallery, but not any of the artists, so as to argue that there is coverage about the gallery itself exemplifies the failure of NCORP to handle this situation. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had. As Vexations has said, "The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world" and yet by the literalist interpretation of NCORP it seems like it will be deleted. This is a failure of the guidelines. --Theredproject (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 ? No one is actually arguing NCORP, nevertheless literally. The agreement is that there aren't enough reliable, secondary source coverage to do justice to the topic. That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines. czar 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Czar—you say "That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines." WP guidelines do not say that reviews of art exhibitions at art galleries do not lend support to notability of art galleries. Arts journalism does not generally review works of art in for instance artists' studios, or even works displayed on the street. It is the public display of art in the institutions called art galleries that prompts the arts journalism to which you refer. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Publications also write about successful business partnerships and the lives of gallerists, and at the very least they review the gallery's shows. This is the type of content you'd need for a decent, authoritative article about a gallery. It follows that we simply cannot write an article that does justice to the topic if the only sources with editorial distance cover the topic in passing. The idea of exempting art gallery articles from sourcing requirements is off-topic (as Theredproject said above) but to the point that other editors are unhappy with the outcome of this AfD, I suggest resolving the core issue elaborated by Vexations above: insufficient sourcing to write an authoritative encyclopedia article, which is not a fault of the guidelines. czar 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. A couple of good profiles in respectable publications would solve the notability issue. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" in a unique way is not a valid argument here. If we adopt that as policy then movie theaters who show films by notable directors, bookstores that have author talks, bars and clubs that present notable musicians and perhaps even restaurants who have have hired notable chefs will all be eligible. (router reset, I'm the original delete vote, 104.163.157.79). 96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You are failing to address the presence of journalistic reviews of art exhibitions. It is not the presence of notable artists or notable artwork that confers notability on art galleries. It is the presence of journalistic reviews of exhibitions that can confer notability on three entities—artists, artwork, and art galleries. The art exhibition is being held on the premises of the art gallery. The gallery choose both the artist and the art. The gallery scheduled and arranged all aspects of the exhibition. Journalists do not write reviews of artwork in artists' studios. Journalists review exhibitions at art galleries. Some galleries of course have a reputation for stimulating or thought-provoking shows. By the way, don't put within quotation marks that "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" because you are not quoting anyone as no one said that. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, I'm sympathetic to your point that some galleries are notable in the conventional sense, but what would an article look like that was solely based on exhibition reviews? What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review? https://www.flashartonline.com/2012/03/fabrice-samyn-review-6-03-2012/ 11:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Vexations—we need not write the article from that review or from any other review but reviews confer notability on art galleries—as well as on artists and artwork. At WP:NNC we find "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." At WP:ARTN we find "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You are conflating two different things when you say "What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review?" That review along with others tends to confer notability on the art gallery, as well as on the artist and the artworks under review in that journalistic piece. We already have an article. The material may or may not derive from reviews of art exhibitions held at the gallery. It is my hope that the material already in the article—whether it comes from reviews of exhibitions or other sources—is based on acceptable-quality sources. But I would argue that a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery. In practice what this can mean for articles on art galleries is a selective list of artist's names and the titles of artworks, with an aim towards providing some commentary, if available. A plus would be the inclusion of images of artworks reliably-sourced to have been exhibited at that gallery. Images convey to the reader a general idea of the kind of art the gallery specializes in. In summation, there are two separate questions: what should the content be? and is the gallery notable? We can "Keep" this article because it already has some content, and notability is established by the many reviews of art exhibitions held there. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Ealing Liberal Synagogue

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

No significant coverage, the one source listed is simply a directory of synagogues addresses. nonon notable Amisom (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Ealing#Religion, as there isn't actually much detail there (in the current article) - the key couple of lines are already on the redirect target. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with anything that provided Sig CoV, there were a few lines in a couple of jewish year books, and a university challenge winner went there, but that seemed to be it. Synagogues fall under WP:NCHURCH which indicates that at least WP:GNG must be met, and potentially WP:NCORP - and neither is, as far as i can tell. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Alley of Immortality (Taganrog)

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

Non-notable war memorial. No significant coverage to be found, and the ru.wiki page from which this was translated also contains no useful sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect, probably to List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog. [was Merge, tentatively]: This sounds interesting, as an unusual type of Category:World War II memorials in Russia, worth at least mentioning in a List of World War II memorials in Russia (currently a redlink) or List of World War II memorials in the Soviet Union (currently a redlink). There could/should be such a list-article as the subject is obviously valid, consistent with wp:CLN to complement the category. I would be willing to start the list-article as part of an outcome of this AFD. Have worked on similar others such as List of Mexican-American War memorials and monuments recently. However, maybe there are sources such that this should be an outright "Keep"; i haven't properly searched, myself. But outright "Delete" is not necessary. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment That's an awful lot of speculation on which to base the retention of this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Well i would be happy to do the list-article, but I would be happier about covering "Alley of Immortality" there if any sources about it were found. Taganrog itself is a very important historic tiny city, and it has a surprising number of important memorials (e.g. the only memorial to Alexander I in Russia, e.g. Checkhov birthplace memorial, memorial relating to Garibaldi living there, covered in large Commons category of photos of memorials in Taganrog) but this one is not covered at all in say this review of Taganrog. I am a bit afraid it is just one small school's little project. Let me say "Merge, tentatively" means if there is _some_ source about this Alley. --Doncram (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have started List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog and I changed my !vote to "redirect" from "merge" above. Without any source yet, I won't myself put any mention of this into the list-article, but the info could be copied to a section on its Talk page, asking readers to come forth with any sourcing if possible. "Redirect" is okay as an Alternative to deletion, and preserves option of restoring article if/when coverage/sources emerge. However, if the deletion nominator and/or closer strongly prefer to Delete, I don't terribly mind, but would still want to copy its info to the Talk page of the list-article that way. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did copy content from this article to a section at Talk:List of monuments and memorials in Taganrog. I voted "Redirect" (to the list of monuments, which might in the future include some coverage of this if any sources show up) above and still think that would be okay/best, though it doesn't terribly matter. --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's an active WW2 memorial and sufficiently notable landmark. There's a bit of coverage here: [112] about earth from more cities being added. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. A memorial like this in a major city would seem to just about climb over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep -- as an unusual variety of war memorial, this is worth having. The alternative would be to Merge somewhere (not merely redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Court

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

Fails WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, even if you overlook the fact this is a substantial residential area larger than some towns or villages, existing for almost 80 years, there is already citations from the Houston Chronicle and ABC13 News used in the article, strongly suggesting it meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Emaar South

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

Non notable. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Imrich Barta

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

No sources to support that he is notable as a person, architect, or painter. It seems that almost nothing on him in the article can be verified. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. The article on Barta has a very interesting history. The article in the English-language WP was created in February 2010. The article in the Slovak-language WP was created two years later, as a translation of the article in English. Until lately in the Slovakian article there was a no footnotes tag [113], removed by an IP, without good reason. This IP has started to translate the article in other WPs ([114], [115]), even recreating it in the Czech-language WP [116], where it had been deleted in 2010 for lacking notability [117], [118]. In the meantime this IP persistently removes the notability, or the no footnote tags from the Barta articles of several language editions, although nothing has changed concerning the sources, references, and verification of its content [119], [120], [121]. Even after I had proposed this article for deletion, this IP tried to remove all tags [122] [123], [124]. All these may point to a cross-wiki job to "force" Barta's notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I dont understand you... you have many sources there, just because you dont understand the language you want to delete entire page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.10.38 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In this version of the article, the latest at this moment:
  • Refs ##1,2,4 [125] are identical, and are just a link to the cover of a book, as it is listed in the webpage of a bookshop.
  • Refs ##3,6 [126] are identical, just mentioning Barta in passing, as one of the architetcs that designed a project ("Naprojektovaný a realizovaný bol v rokoch 1959 až 1963, jeho autormi sú architekti Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta"). While adding this information you didn't even wrote that, οmitting the other name mentioned in the source, by writing in the article that only "Barta was architect of Bratislava´s city quarter called Ružová Dolina between the years 1959-1963" [127], though he was not alone in that [128] according to the source.
  • Ref #5 [129] is a extract from the aforementioned book. The only thing we get to know from this pdf is from the name index of the book (p. 485), that there is a reference to Barta on page 244, but we can't see what kind of reference is that. It is quite interesting that in the "Biografie architektov" (=Biography of architects) section of the book there is a biography of Eugen Barta (p. 465), but not of Imrich Barta (biographies are in alphabetical order: before Eugen Barta is Zoltan Balit, and follows Peter Bauer).
  • in Ref #7 [130] the only thing about Barta is this "5/ 1959-1963: Ružová dolina (1 110 bytov) architekti: Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta", something we already know from Refs ##3,6.
These are the "many sources there". ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that claiming an editor went to the trouble of translating the English Wiki article into Slovenian in order to boost notability is a bit of a stretch.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Well 96.127.242.226, there is no translation into Slovenian (sl:Slovenščina); sk:Slovenčina means Slovak language. The person behind the 178.59…/176.92… etc IPs translated the article in English on Barta into German, Czech, and Italian; the article in the Italian-language WP has been already speedily deleted [131] after tagged by myself. These IPs are all Greek, and their provider is Cyta Hellas, the Greek branch of the a Cyprus telecommunications company. The Greek article on Barta was created by another Cyta Hellas IP [132] (Cyta Hellas has no more than 16% of the Greek telecommunications market), just a line in the beginning, and then another user -who has nothing to do with the abovementioned IPs- translated to Greek the whole article from the English-language WP. Later the 176/178… IPs were also involved. It is very interesting that 176.92.127.118 added to the text (without a source as the rule is) that Barta's Greek origin was from Salonica [133]. In Sk-WP it was also created this stub that has to do with Barta too (the only verifible content about his activities). The Greek IPs were also busy in removing repedately the notability and no footnotes templates from Barta's articles, and adding unreferenced content about his activities in some articles of several language versions of WP [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. ΙP 178.59.10.38 also claimed in a file deletion discussion at Commons concerning Barta that she/he is the owner of a Barta's painting picturing the Blumental Church in Bratislava; Barta, according to the article on him besides an architect he was supposed to be a painter too, who as stated in the article "He [had] created many oil paintings in the style of Van Gogh", and that "After his death his works became exclusive and marketable". All evidence support that there is a "promotional" cross-wiki job undertook by these Greek IPs, and this is either WP:COI, or trolling. I cannot think of something else to expalain facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice detective work. However I do not think such activity is anything to worry about. What happens on other wikis happens. We can handle the notability here without reference to other wikis, even given collusion, conspiracy, meat and sockpuppets should they come along.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This is ridiculous. Imrich Barta was not a famous painter, and did not bring many Americans to visit Bratislava to see works "in the style of Van Gogh". Americans who want to see van Goghs go to the Van Gogh Museum or the Kröller-Müller Museum, not to Bratislava to visit the non-existent Imrich Barta Museum or any of the fine museums of Bratislava, none of who appear to gave an Imrich Barta in their collections. Vexations (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete He seems to have some reliable source coverage as an architect, although none at all as a painter. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and Chalk19's additional sleuthing. A person who fails WP:NPERSON, an architect who fails WP:ARCHITECT, and a painter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Trifecta! -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton

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

Essentially useless page, as there is no practical way of listing "every building in Moncton" and the ones listed are unremarkable anyway. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Clarityfiend, clearly viable as an index of articles complementary to Category:Buildings and structures in Moncton. The nominator is incorrect in believing the list has to include "every building in Moncton", and the sole delete !voter's comment has no substance to respond to. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Merging into a parent article or combining with other lists as some of the below commenters have proposed would certainly be acceptable, but that's a question for normal editing and discussion to resolve. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete; I was going to say "without prejudice against recreation of a narrower List of historic places in Moncton", but it turns out that list already exists. We do not routinely create lists of all buildings in all cities, or even all buildings that have Wikipedia articles — for one thing, categories do not always have to be directly paired with a corresponding list of the same contents, and for another, nominator is essentially correct that if we don't put a defined scope on the list's contents, then anybody can just come along and indiscriminately add any building to the list that exists at all. This list already includes at least one thing, Magnetic Hill, that is neither a building nor a structure at all, and numerous things that are very, very unlikely to ever qualify for Wikipedia articles. Lists of building need to be scoped to defined criteria, such as registered historic status — but again, that list already exists, so there's no need to repurpose this into it. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • It's routine to limit lists to only notable examples, that's certainly a fixable issue. Beyond that, your argument seems to boil down to WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. No one is ever compelled to create content of any kind, but once an editor does create permissible content, you do need a valid and compelling reason to go out of your way to have it deleted, and there has to be a demonstrated consensus for that result. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Princess Towers

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

Article about a housing cooperative, not well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. The only references here are an entry in the self-published "encyclopedia of our own history" of the university this was affiliated with, and a single newspaper article which I just searched for on ProQuest and found that it's a 200-word blurb -- which means that the substantive source isn't independent, and the independent source isn't substantive. Residential apartment buildings aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I found a number of local mentions in a before search. I'm not sure they add up to WP:GNG but since it is or was the tallest building in Kingston (Emporis lists it as fourth) there's a chance the article could be sourced adequately, so I'm going to abstain on voting. SportingFlyer talk 07:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, while I did find a small smattering of purely local coverage in ProQuest beyond just the blurb that's been cited here, it definitely wasn't enough: it didn't expand beyond Kingston, it didn't support the addition of any genuine substance to this article beyond reverification of its existence, and it was vastly outnumbered by coverage of a different unrelated Princess Towers in a different Canadian city (and even combined, the two buildings still generated less than 60 hits total.) Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Madison House (Kincardine, Ontario)

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

Poorly sourced article about a house, whose only potential claim of notability is that it's purported to be haunted. But the only references present here are a ghosthunter's Blogspot blog and a tourist directory, which are not reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a house's notability. Haunted or not, houses are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get them in the door. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I came to this thinking delete. The only other source I could find about "Madison" was [139], which is primary (some kind of B&B) and weak as a source. However, in searching the address (343 Durham Market Square), the house is registered as a historic place in Ontario - [140] p. 8, [141], [142], [143]. However, it probably should not stay at the current title. Chris857 (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Even a registered historic place still requires reliable source coverage, and isn't handed any automatic freebie on purely primary sources just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a registered historical landmark per the Ontario Heritage Act. The government reports on it alone as supplied by Chris857 satisfy GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
No, they don't. GNG is media coverage, not government reports — if government reports conferred a GNG pass all by themselves, we would have to keep an article about every single building that exists on earth including residential houses. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of GNG and what types of sources are considered evidence of notability. GNG explicitly states sources of evidence of notablity include "but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals," not simply the ambiguous term "media." --Oakshade (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I understand GNG correctly. For example, construction companies always have to file construction plans with a city planning commission before they can build any building or structure at all, and then the city planning commission has to vote to approve or reject those plans, or demand further changes to comply with regulations — meaning that every single structure that exists can always be sourced to a government report, because no structure ever comes into existence without being documentable to city planning commission files. You can't even put a granny suite in your backyard without the city planning commission having a file on that — so every granny suite in existence is documentable to government reports too. But we can't simply extend notability to every building that exists — so a building's notability cannot rest on routine sources that every building could always show, and has to rest on a class of sourcing that doesn't routinely exist for every building: namely, being singled out for special dedicated attention by media. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You're confusing routine building permits/applications and files that all buildings have with in-depth analysis and historical context reports' that are not just documents on file at city hall. Your granny suite in your backyard does not have a government in-depth report of the analysis of the historical significance of it as this topic does. If you'd like to change GNG to not accept reports by government agencies as evidence of notability, you need to make you proposal and case on the GNG talk page, not push your new agenda on a single AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete In order to pass WP:GEOFEAT: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I don't see the reliable third-party sourcing here yet. The government documents that grant historical significance appear primary - perhaps I'm wrong on this. If precedent exists that all historically notable houses pass GEOFEAT please ping me. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Government reports on private entities such as this location are not primary. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Three of the four sources are from the city of Kincardine, which is the city that authorized its historical heritage, and are the documentation of the way it became a heritage site. The other is a walking tour of all the historic properties of Kincardine. Are you making the argument all of these heritage properties in this small Ontario town deserve their own wikipedia article based on WP:GNG? Because they should all have this level of sourcing. Even assuming the references are not primary, the sources are trivial - and the reason this house has an article in the first place is for a completely different reason, because it was listed on some haunted ghost tour blog or something. A historic property can be notable, and fairly easily so - but a property cannot pass WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
This is easy. "The city that authorized the historical heritage" is not the property. The property is not the city, not owned by the city nor a city government entity. A property easily passes WP:GNG if the only sources are the ones which reference the fact it's historical, provided the coverage is in-depth as it is in this case. And in-depth historical analysis is not "trivial".--Oakshade (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It's more difficult than you make it out to be per WP:PRIMARY. The local government ordinance is nowhere close to being an independent source. It's not as if the municipality is publishing information about this house specifically: this type of coverage would be expected for all heritage listed properties in the town. There's no other coverage of it anywhere. Not every historical building gets a notability pass for Wikipedia because it's historical, especially when the only documentation about its history is the type of documentation which exists for any historic building in any jurisdiction by the local government, which is what we have here. (along with a town "walking tour" which appears to list all historic properties in town.) SportingFlyer talk 14:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be blending the claim that the government sources of this property are "primary" with regular notability arguments. It makes no difference if the government makes reports on all historic properties or just one as the government is still not the property and therefore not primary. Every National Register of Historic Places property would be considered "primary" under that scenario which of course they aren't. If you'd like to say "I don't think all properties the government considers historic are notable," fine. But to claim government reports are "primary" to private properties is simply false. --Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm simply interpreting WP:PRIMARY properly: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. — which is what the Kincadine local ordinance and property description is. SportingFlyer talk 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Cherry picking a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research to attempt to show a government source is a primary one to a private property really looks like grabbing at staws. That quote is meant to discourage original research, which of course this is not. Just that the secondary source is geographically close to the topic doesn't magically transform it into a "primary" source. And I'm surprised I have to say this, this property is not an "event." Anyway, since you're valuing the content on the NOR page and classifying this topic as an "event," WP:SECONDARY states a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." The property is "at least one step removed" from the government reports and those reports are the very definition of WP:SECONDARY. --Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel like you're grasping at straws to keep an article which should clearly be deleted, to be honest. Let's recap: Does this property get a notability waiver for being a Canadian National Heritage Site? Not from any available sources, no. Does it get a notability waiver for being an Ontario Heritage Site? No, as there are many of these sites. Perhaps this notable enough for a list. The only available sources shown for a keep are primary sources showing the property is an Ontario Heritage Site, which can be expected for all properties on the Ontario Heritage Site list (I'm excluding the one or two sentence blurb from the walking tour brochure.) No other sources are available... and again, the reason this article exists is to promote a "haunted house." They may not be primary sources since the owners of the house didn't write about the house and try to get it published. SportingFlyer talk 06:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Now you've changed the subject as your "primary" argument holds no weight. Sorry, it was you who was grasping at straws with that attempted application of WP:NOR for your false argument that government reports on this private property were "primary." The in-depth coverage from the detail analysis of the government reports easily show this passing WP:GNG. Your false "those are primary sources" argument didn't work. If you think this or any article "should clearly be deleted" then try to build a consensus for your opinion which doesn't seem to be happening. --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. The government sources aren't primary to the house, but they are primary to your concept of notability (that the house is notable because the government has made it a local heritage site), and if we accept them, we erode WP:GEOFEAT by allowing features included at the sub-national heritage level to be included in the encyclopedia. Give me a secondary source that's more than a couple sentences. SportingFlyer talk 08:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Now you're not even reading correctly. The property is notable because of in-depth coverage from secondary sources, in this case government reports. The government is secondary source even by your standards of applying the WP:NOR policy which you linked to above. Now that you're finally admitting the government sources aren't primary to the house, let's move on. --Oakshade (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it was included on the Canadian Register of Historic Places then it would be notable per WP:GEOFEAT: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." However, this appears to merely be a local listing, which does not count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note this should be covered at List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Bruce County.
First, this should not be outright deleted, because merge to the list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. It does not yet seem to be included in that list-article; it should be added. I myself am not familiar enough with Canadian historic places to understand why it is not yet listed there; User:Magicpiano is an editor who has developed that list-article and others like it and I would be glad if they could comment here.
I prefer "Keep" over "Merge" because the information available, i.e. this source given above, suggests to me it is equivalent to U.S. National Register of Historic Places eligibility ("Italianate architecture – low pitched mansard roof – centre tower on the front façade – windows with rounded headers and decorative keystones and a verandah with Greek columns – built in 1870’s by Thomas C. Rooklodge whose family operated the “pork factory” / Designation By-law – 4641 Date Designated: January 3, 1985 ). It would be nice to have a separate nomination document about it, and I presume such exists, [it does exist] although it is designated by the province of Ontario [by local government] and is apparently not a Canadian national historic site. --Doncram (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC) --17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Doncram: It's not equivalent to the national register of historic places: see Ontario Heritage Act. It shouldn't be on the list you mention. I would be a keep if more historic notability could be shown; this is just a property which a local municipality has declared a local heritage site, but there are many of these sites in this town alone. SportingFlyer talk 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I was going to say, in fact there is separate nomination document (linked above) sufficing to provide information to develop the article more, and IMO comparable to U.S. National Register documentation. Based on photo of the house, I would have called it Second Empire in style, with elements of Italianate as Second Empire buildings often have, but the summary above was just calling it Italianate. However the Walking tour brochure does term it Second Empire, so that can be used in the article.
I do think it should be included in the Bruce County historic places list article, which is supposed to cover sites designated "locally, provincially, territorially, nationally, or by more than one level of government." Given your assertion I am not sure if it is province-level or not (what does according to Ontario Heritage Act mean, I will go look that up, yes [okay i see the provincial act gives authority to local government] ) but it is at least locally-designated. We do have list-articles about local registers in the U.S., and about individual places on just a local register if there is adequate information, as there is here. There's plenty about it, IMO. This is fine to Keep and develop. --Doncram (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, all of the locally designated historic places can/should be covered in the Bruce County list-article or a separately-broken out list-article about places in Kincardine alone. They don't have to get separate articles, necessarily, but they can get separate articles if there's enough info available, as there is here IMO. --Doncram (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
And about the "primary" quality of the sources, as Oakshade notes above, they are not primary to the property; calling them secondary is more appropriate. SportingFlyer is right that as local sources they are not quite as good as sources that have undergone more levels of professional review, and none is guaranteed here. U.S. NRHP listings do get some state-level review reflected in modifications to the application forms. But state-level or local-level source forms are in fact used directly in many NRHP listings, with or without any further documents from higher state or national levels (although there may have been higher review in fact or at least potentially). So we have to go partly on the apparent quality of the documents, which seem okay to me. --Doncram (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
To settle one question, I just began adding Kincardine locally-designated historic sites to the list-article. Note the list-article has a municipal listing identifier column which I am trying to use, but having some trouble (discuss at Talk:List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Kincardine local historic sites). There is no "Notes" or "Description" column, so it is not feasible to merge all available material, even to give a single descriptive word like "Italianate", into the list-article. Unless the standardized format of this Ontario historic places list-article is to be changed, it seems we need to "Keep" the article to allow description. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This conversation should occur on the talk page of that article. I disagree with what you've done, as that list is for registered historic places as searchable on [144] - there is only one registered building in Kincardine, and it's not this property. This is why I'm fighting for a delete, where I am probably a lean keep on geographical AfDs: all we have to go on is a primary document for a provincial heritage registry, not something which would automatically be notable. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, this document: [145] says Kingston has over 1,000 places on the Ontario Heritage register, but only 120 on the national register. I can't find anything showing this is on the national register, and in the absence of documents on the property that don't relate to its local listing/aren't primary, I don't think it can be kept. SportingFlyer talk 18:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay maybe the Kincardine ones should be in a separate new list-article, and maybe not in that Southwestern Ontario list-article, and that is being discussed there, including with more info about the Kingston example. However IMHO there certainly should/will be a list of Kincardine municipal historic sites somewhere. So the existing Madison House article will not be an orphan; it will be listed in context somewhere. However we still have more reliable enough info about the architecture and history of this house than will be covered in such list-article, so keeping a separate article still makes sense. Of course we should drop most or all of the rubbish about being haunted.
Maybe we should not get too bogged down in whether to call the available official coverage "primary" vs. "secondary". I suppose you can call it primary if it is written without including explicit sourcing to other documents, and I think these do not include lists of references. However there are 70,000 Wikipedia articles about U.S. NRHP places which mostly are sourced just to documents relating to their listing, which you may call "primary". Many of the NRHP documents do reference other sources; many do not. You can't be too harsh about "primary" sources; they are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they're not being stretched to make disputable points. I don't think it is controversial to say the Madison House has elements of Italianate style, etc., based on the local listing saying so, plus the photos which show those elements to the informed editors. --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, we've decided that NRHP and Canadian national historic places can get notability waivers — in this instance, we're dealing with a property whose only sourcing is its addition to a local heritage list. Whether an article on the local heritage list for a 12,000 person town is notable is not for me to say at this point, and I don't mind if the information is captured somewhere, but there's nowhere near enough to keep this particular article at this moment. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Landmark (Taichung

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=850491533"
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