Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

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:

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|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 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/Arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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 The Canterville Ghost. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canterville - The musical

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG; zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without comment by anonymous IP account. Altered Walter (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Canterville Ghost which briefly mentions this musical. This title is a possible search result, although someone's unlikely to type this exact name with that punctuation and capitalization. The musical isn't notable; there's a lack of media coverage from Google search results. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My issue with including this particular adaptation of TCG in the main article is that there wasn't really anything out there to suggest that it is particularly noteworthy. I'll do another search, but when I'd researched this via PROD I didn't see where it'd received any coverage to where it'd be worth redirecting and mentioning. I can see perhaps using the title as a general redirect, but I'm not sure that this specific musical would be worth mentioning. It exists, but it doesn't seem to be any more notable than any of the various "musical interpretation of X" that get made and performed each year.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Canterville Ghost. This musical seems to have had just a single concert performance, last November. Listings in various blogs and music event directories, but nothing substantial in a reliable source, that I could see. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2013 (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 speedy keep. The nominator has failed to provide an argument for deletion, and in this case, proposed mergers should be used as the nominator has proposed a merger. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the West was Won: A Pioneer Pageant

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

Suggest this article be merged with Whitman Massacre Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per criterion 1 there, and because this isn't the place for merge requests. There's a reasonable argument for notability, so the real question is whether for editorial reasons a merge is better: that doesn't require an AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge My apologies for AfD, Curation Tools automatically creates this and does not give the option of suggesting a merge. I agree that the information is worth keeping, it just seems out of place as a separate article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Moyer

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

Not notable but assertion is there. Ariconte (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage rises to the level of interesting but ultimately not notable. There is the local coverage and some appearances on TV. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Five minutes of fame for some juggling stunts is not notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2013 (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 List of festivals in Chicago. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Select Media Festival

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see support of WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Culture of Chicago or List of festivals in Chicago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 31 January 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper Productions

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

Non-notable local drama group. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Wondering if it's a candidate for speedy deletion as there isn't really any assertion of notability within the article. The link for founder Jonathan Peacock appears to bring up the wrong Jonathan Peacock. I've Googled a bit and this article is the most substantial result I've found — other results are just passing mentions.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This appears to be qa theraputic group organised by a hospital. As such it is an amateur theatre group, so that I am doubtful whether we can keep it. However does the venue desreve an article? If so, we might reanme and restructure the article into one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theer is already one. See Jubilee Theatre. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 30 January 2013 (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 Move to Darkhorse Theater. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GroundWorks Theatre

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

Seems to be an advert. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, web sources all local (& not recent) or routine listings.TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move/merge/repurpose/redirect. I don't believe this particular organization is notable, but my online research leaves me thinking that the Darkhorse Theater, where Groundworks' productions are staged, is notable. An article about the Darkhorse Theater, incorporating information about the various performing arts groups that perform there, would be a reasonable place for some of the content on this page. Unfortunately, there isn't an article about Darkhorse, but there actually is an article about the owner, Peter Kurland. I'm proposing to move this page to Darkhorse Theater and build it out as an article about Darkhorse. --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move and repurpose as Orlady proposes, for the reasons she states. And if more evidence of separate notability for GroundWorks turns up later, a separate article could always be spun out again. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2013 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Coal Theatre Company

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

Seems like an unreferenced advert. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no prejudice to being rewritten The notability tag was added as a drive-by with no explanation on the talk page or in the edit comment, and the tagger never made another edit to the article. On Google, I saw hits that would merit more attention, so there is a preliminary presumption of notability. If being tagged for five years with a notability tag was a concern, the tag could have been removed. With the total failure of WP:V, there is no verifiable material to salvage. The component that is promotional tone means that the article should not be incubated. Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user ( VigilancePrime (talk · contribs) ) who tagged it for notability years ago was banned for disruptive editing around that same time, although, seeing the article now, I too have to question notability. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Would have to go with delete here for now. May be notable, but can't really tell. I looked on Google and don't really see coverage of the group in anything more than upcoming performances mentions and a few performance reviews that are not really notable, in my opinion. Others are just mentions that they exist. Not widespread coverage and can't tell that they have won any awards apart from a local weekly paper's mention back in 2000. Being around for 16 years or so might lend some weight, but can't really say keep just because of that, I don't know. If any more sources are found or awards won, it could always be recreated in the future. Will keep looking. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this theater company has been covered in a reasonably notable blog BroadwayWorld.com and has also been covered in some books beyond the typical directory type entrys. RadioFan (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:53, 27 January 2013 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Ruuska

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

Not notable. Only able to see one of three (?) refs and that seems to establish that he exists and is a curator. Fails by a long way to establish notability in Wikipedia terms. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep There's quite a few references on the Finnish Wikipedia (unusual - I usually find the other languages very scanty in referencing compared to this one...). Peridon (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:24, 22 January 2013 (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.

Arts Templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 2#Template:UK underground

Arts Proposed deletions

Act provocateur international

Visual arts

Seth Hill

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

No signifigant coverage in any reliable and secondary sources. There are only sources briefly mentioning awards that Hill has been nominated for. No biographical details. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Visual arts. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee, for his notable work on Top Gun: Maverick, starring Tom Cruise. He was also nominated for a BAFTA Award for Top Gun: Maverick and a Primetime Emmy Award for his work on Stranger Things. He definitely has reliable and secondary sources on him [1]. His oscar nomination sources [2][3][4][5]. His emmy nomination sources [6]. There are biographical details where he leads Method Studios along with two other people [7][8]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the information and links provided above by User:MoviesandTelevisionFan. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless I'm mistaken an Oscar nominee attains notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickwheel

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted before in 2006, still doesn't seem to meet GNG. Though I don't want this to be deleted either, I think this needs to be. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Pichincha

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

Contested draft; in fact, it was moved to mainspace without improvement, and improved minimally. A before search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched in both Spanish and English, and the only sources that came up were a few passing mentions in google books and government websites or self published blogs. I couldn't find any usable WP:SIGCOV. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect/selective merge to Pichincha Province.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Muñiz

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

A biography of a living artist. The article seems to be entirely promotional, and the artist not notable at all. I can't find anything that constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources that would come close to WP:GNG, and nothing that approaches any of the criteria at WP:ARTIST. Of the references in the article, three don't mention Muñiz at all, and the other is a local art blog.

The article was created by Abe21lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has no contributions unrelated to this topic), who wrote on the help desk have created one for my partner, Antonio Muñiz, as you can see (I guess). I also manage his website (http://www.anotniomuniz-art.com) and his Facebook page. (diff)

Consequently, I think we should delete the article. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Mexico, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing at all here to suppose WP:GNG would be passed and sure enough, a WP:BEFORE demonstrates categorically that there's nothing more out there. So push the big red button... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NARTIST.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 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]

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]

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 [9] 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: [10]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [11]. 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]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

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

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

OCEAN Design Research Association

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Kottaram

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

Contested draft. Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turns up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas Church, Nalukody

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

After doing WP:BEFORE, I cannot find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV or notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Jones (architect)

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

An orphan article. An unremarkable career that does not meet WP:ARCHITECT. Source 1 is merely a registration database, sources 3 and 5 are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing a notification of the creator, MurielMary, who might be able to explain why they believed notability requirements were met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, LibStar, please post an AFD notification to User:MurielMary as you should have when you listed this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 4c of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV per the source by Cox and Women in New Zealand Architecture: A Literature Review in Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. This latter journal highlights that Jones was specifically featured in prominent exhibitions in New Zealand women architects and was featured prominently in the November-December 1993 issue of Architecture New Zealand magazine.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets criteria 1 of the architect notability criteria: the person is regarded as an important figure, as evidenced by inclusion in Cox's work. MurielMary (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst Elizabeth Cox's source goes to GNG the source on it's own isn't enough to establish notability as the rest of the sources are non-independent or non-RS. There doesn't even seem to be mention of anything she's designed, which suggests she isn't notable too. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add: if there is sigcov of her work that'd go towards coverage of her and might sway my vote depending on how much and how in depth it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

CCG Profiles (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Arts

Canterville - The musical

How the West was Won: A Pioneer Pageant

Pete Moyer

Select Media Festival

Juniper Productions

GroundWorks Theatre

Burning Coal Theatre Company

Pekka Ruuska

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Act provocateur international

Visual arts

Seth Hill

Clickwheel

Flag of Pichincha

Antonio Muñiz

Iosevka

Events in the Life of Harold Washington

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

OCEAN Design Research Association

Aranmula Kottaram

St Thomas Church, Nalukody

Annette Jones (architect)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages