Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:43, 24 November 2024

WP:DSPAINTING

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Visual 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:

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 as 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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Visual 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Visual arts. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

For Visual arts listings only:

A simple tag to put on AfD discussions as an alternative to the coding given above under "tag an AFD" is:

It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

Visual arts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of monospaced typefaces#Iosevka. czar 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iosevka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites no secondary sources whatsoever, and a preliminary Google search confirms that there is only one news article covering this typeface, and it is in passing. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The search in question, for those curious: https://news.google.com/search?q=iosevka /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of monospaced typefaces per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed this policy. Thank you; I see this as a much better option. I'll leave this open to see what other editors think, though. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of monospaced typefaces. YC comments and GitHub repos don't establish notability, but redirects are cheap. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Events in the Life of Harold Washington

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability, no images, article itself is of rather poor quality. Issues have gone uncorrected for at least 12 years, based on the top message Sandcat555 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG with its sources. Needs some editing, and I've done a bit (thanks Sandcat555 for bringing attention to the page), but not deletion. As for the notability, Harold Washington was one of Chicago's most beloved mayors, and the downtown Chicago Public Library is named after him in tribute and honor. It and this mural are two of Chicago's several major commemorative remembrances of Washington. The page also gives a well-written and now edited background of Washington's impact on Chicago and an interesting summary and focus on the artist, Jacob Lawrence. This one seems an easy keep, and I've tried to improve it towards that result. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harold and his library namesake may be fantastic for all I know, but that changes nothing with this article. The majority of the page isn't about the mural at all, despite it being the title. Write a page about Washington, or merge this into something else, but keeping it as it is doesn't fix the problem. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem (eye of the beholder?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might not care about GNG, but this page does not in fact establish notability. I do believe it's also a problem to have more content and sources about a different topic than the actual subject of the article. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree completely with Randy Kryn - the article does well in explaining both the background of the subject as well as the artist's creation of the mural. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge The comments above do not appropriately address notability. It's rather absurd that more of the article merely summarizes the importance of Harold Washington rather than discusses the mural itself. This is a WP:REFBOMB – The only source for information about the mural is "Jacob Lawrence and the Making of Americans", used as cite 15 and 16. With that, it fails WP:GNG, as Washington being beloved and his background being well-written are utterly irrelevant. My search for sources only found brief mentions about the library's collections. Perhaps it can be merged to Harold Washington Library where it's located. I'm also surprised the article inaccurately states Lawrence painted the mural, when it's actually a tile mosaic. Reywas92^Talk 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ceramic tiles bit, painting on tiles is a recognized form of mosaic. I've added a city of Chicago governmental source about the mural (is that where you found it?) which includes its size, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that one. And even if this is notable, this and those other artworks can be covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You worded my view far better than I did myself. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search in Google books reveals it has received coverage from multiple reliable art and architecture publications. Unfortunately most do not allow to read the extent of the coverage but it seems sufficient to tip the scales. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those publications the mural has been referenced here (some have more in-depth coverage than others): City of Chicago, CBS News Best Murals in Chicago, Chicago Tribune before it was completed, Chicago Tribune one year later, The Chicago Public Art Guide, Chicago Reader, The New Yorker. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article needs to be improved. It needs to focus more on the mural than on the background. Content from some of the sources availible should be included in the article, but that is not a valid reason for deletion since notability can be established by the fact that there are multiple reliable sources with non trivial coverage independent of the subject (even if some of them can not be accessed online). Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of these links, 1 and 5 are identical but in different formats, 2 has less of the same info with nothing new, and 3, 4, 6, and 7 are briefest passing mentions with nothing useful to be used as a source. I'd be happy to accept offline sources but can you please indicate which appear to provide significant coverage? The results I see appear to be passing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG seems to have been achieved here in the accumulated sources. This is the mural depicting Washington in the main downtown Chicago Public Library named for him, probably the definitive artwork in Chicago of its popular mayor. Adequate sources are either on the page or exist, which is all that is asked for keeping such a page (especially for an artwork article). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS news article provides significant coverage and lists it as one of the best murals in chicago which is also a strong claim of notability by a reliable source. To a much lower extent, the same holds true for the inclusion in the Chicago's public art catalog. Information can be sourced from both of them. Together with the reference in the article the requirement from coverage from multiple independent reliable sources is already met. I can not know the depth of the coverage in the offline sources in the Google books search as their contents are not viewable, but the number of them and the type of publications provide additional evidence of notability so I see no justification for deletion even if the article should be improved. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the sources in the article and identified in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to StarKid Productions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (musical)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely reliant on primary sources from Starkid Productions, and a BEFORE yields no significant coverage of this subject, with only trivial mentions of its existence popping up across both reliable and unreliable sources. This is better off redirected or merged to Starkid Productions, the company that produced this musical, as there is no indication of GNG being met with this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starkid Productions per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was this review in the student newspaper of Fanshawe College. Clearly not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [1] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [2]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [3]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) As far as I can tell, we don't have any other article that is about "List of paintings of x origin being held in museums in y country". This feels like WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and it's really not notable that Western European paintings specifically are held in Ukraine when Western European paintings are held in museums around the world and when Ukrainian museums have collections of paintings from around the world.

2) Most of the history discussed in the article is not about Western European art in Ukraine specifically, but about the history of artworks in Ukraine in general (several mentions of art museums with Oriental art). This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't justify the existence of an article dedicated specifically to Western European art in Ukraine.

3) The article has been marked as completely lacking sources for 15 years, probably because there is a lack of sources dedicated to the topic of "which Western European paintings are held in Ukraine" (only one I could find was a book published in 1981, but the information in that list is almost certainly out of date after 40 years).

Previous deletion discussion was closed as no consensus.

Jaguarnik (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ukraine, Visual arts, and Lists. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to agree with the nom, this isn't really helpful when Western European art is held around the world. I really don't see notability for most of the museums, they aren't that well-known. We're not listing paintings in the Louvre or the MoMA, that are world-famous. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the list part of this article is unhelpful. National museums house stuff from across the entire globe, it's what they do, and which museums house what isn't really encyclopedia material. Where there's a particular documented controversy about a country's culture being housed in another country's museums (Elgin marbles is an extreme individual case) then we can have an article, but I don't think there's any special controversy about the fact there are Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums. So I agree to this extent: the list could be deleted. But the introductory material to the list, about the history of museums, galleries, and art-works is actually quite encyclopedic and interesting. Could the article be trimmed of its "list" material and status, and moved to a more appropriate title? Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CROSSCAT. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Elemimele's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment imo the problem with the suggestion is that that portion of the article remains unreferenced, so while it is interesting and possibly valid as a renamed article, I would want to see it appropriately sourced - or sourced at all - before making that determination. Are there other articles we could merge it into that already discuss the topic? Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a single source, but I still stand by my comment. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. The lack of sourcing means even the (very interesting) prose part of this is not salvageable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly List of Holocaust memorials and museums § United Kingdom could be expanded into a full article along the lines of List of Holocaust memorials and museums in the United States, as there are 156 search results for "Holocaust" in the Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register. The contents of this page could then be a section there. Ham II (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular Stolperstein is unique because it is the only one in the United Kingdom. This has made this particular one the subject of signifcant coverage, and has also made it the site of activist activities which get in the news such as [4], [5] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Dallas Contemporary (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Visual arts==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iosevka}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Events_in_the_Life_of_Harold_Washington}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Friday (musical)}}