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:

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 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.
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.

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

watch

Arts

Ella Baff

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ella Baff

Ella Baff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing that would qualify under the general notability guideline. Lots of problems with inadequate sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets notability requirements including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:Basic per available sources [3][4][5][6][7][8] Ednabrenze (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Has a lot of sources, and 3 or 4 of those sources passes the WP:DEPTH requirement, seems pretty notable if you ask me.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: A program officer for arts and culture is simply an office job inside the foundation, nothing notable that gets you an article. Sourcing is a mix of PR items and confirmation of appointments to various positions, none of which are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  She is better known for her work as the executive and artistic director of the Jacob's Pillow dance festival, than for what she did while working at the Mellon Foundation. I am adding in details now. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b - I invite you to re-consider the article now that I have made multiple additions and shifted the focus to make it clear that her primary impact is at Jacob's Pillow DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: New sources are more about Jacob's Pillow, not about this person. Not really helping prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: For others to consider, I think the top three sources about Baff are these (selected because of the extended coverage that spans multiple years):. I further think that she meets WP:CREATIVE for her work with Jacob's Pillow (criteria #4, which in part says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." That being said. I look forward to hearing what others think. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Live Art Development Agency

Live Art Development Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [9] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Arts Templates for deletion

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

Arts Proposed deletions

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists

Visual arts

Sinfest

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sinfest
• Articles for deletion/Sinfest (2nd nomination)

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Webcomics. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.

Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.

I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Architecture

Chesterfield County Government Complex

Chesterfield County Government Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Utter failure of the WP:GNG with a complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was removed with no rationale. Let'srun (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Iglesia Apostólica Filadelfia

Iglesia Apostólica Filadelfia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under SNG or GNG. Small church built in 2015. Not only no GNG references, there are zero references on it. Reference is about the religion, not the church. And so is the article other than the 1 "it exists" statement. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a bad nomination, emphasizing the current state of the article rather than the notability of the subject. However, the sorry state of the article accurately reflects the non-notable nature of the subject. A quick BEFORE indicates that the church is an independent congregation in the Pentecostal Apostolic tradition with no claim to fame, even locally. Possibility of Spanish-language sources escaping my search seems unlikely. No relevant merge or redirect target exists, so ATD isn't in play. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the state of the article is not the issue. The description given was indicative of wp:notability, the comments on the content of the article and sources were merely indicative of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic heritage of Hyderabad

Islamic heritage of Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Don't see the point of this article. The lead mostly talks about Hyderabad itself and the city's name, and the history section is just a brief overview of the area's history which is already covered extensively in history of Hyderabad. The rest, and majority of the article covers the Muslim architecture of Hyderabad, which is covered in Qutb Shahi architecture (the dynasty which built most of Hyderabad's notable Muslim architecture), list of mosques in Hyderabad, Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, and Hyderabad#Landmarks. This article is very redundant with those other articles and doesn't serve any good purpose. There would be a better case for this article's existence if the sources treated this article's title as a distinct topic, but they do not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, India, and Telangana. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a Hyderabadi Muslims article which may be a suitable merge target. Left guide (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  If the article was actually about it's title, then yes, Hyderabadi Muslims would be a great merge target, but as I said it's mainly just about the general architecture of Hyderabad created by Muslims, and thus if it were to be merged, which I don't think it should be as none of the content is not already covered in any of the possible merge targets, the merge targets would be the ones above which makes the article redundant. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, and oppose merger. I could see this being a valid overview of Islamic influence in the culture of Hyderabad, but as it stands the OP is correct; there is no justification for this. It is also, unfortunately, typical of the work of its creator, in that it has a liberal sprinkling of copyright and verifiability issues, which is why I oppose a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources. Page is also WP:SYNTH and the creator of the page inserted opinion in a circular bit of logic. I am also opposed to merge for same reason. RangersRus (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Abdali Hospital

Abdali Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aquebogue Windmill

Aquebogue Windmill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable replica structure written in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. Fails the test of multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources. (The Bob Liepa article is the same article published in three different places, the Dempsey article does not mention this windmill at all, and the KDHamptons article is ineligible as tabloid coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Coverage I find is strictly local, from the Suffolk Times about damage to the windmill. There seems to be no coverage outside of hyperlocal items, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge (selective) with Pantigo Windmill, of which this is a replica. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  As nominator I would accept a selective merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I removed the non-encyclopedic promotional tone. However, there is currently only one reliable source; plus the KDHamptons article. The latter is shurely tabloid, but here it's only used to proof that the mill can be rented, so tabloid coverage is sufficient. --Cyfal (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:SBST: "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." That means there is insufficient evidence that this windmill passes the WP:GNG. No one's doubting the mill can be rented; we're doubting whether it meets the notability standards of this encyclopedia. I think the "merge" proposal is a good one, finding a home for the encyclopedic content in this article since it doesn't otherwise have standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the Aquebogue Windmill is historically important and its meeting Wikipedia's rules for notability, so i guess keep will be the correct approach to this article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge a small amount of content to Pantigo Windmill as per Djflem, and lose the rest. Not notable in its own right - purely local interest. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

• Deletion sorting: Visual Arts (WP:Visual arts is a descendant of WP:Arts)

Other pages

• Music-related deletions
• Film and TV-related deletions
• Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)

((Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|arts)) ((Category:wikiproject arts|deletion))