Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts Information

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Arts

Charles L. Venable

Charles L. Venable (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Nomination on behalf of the subject, whose request ( with permission) is copied below. Primefac ( talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Dear Wikipedia:

I am the subject of a Wikipedia page named "Charles L. Venable." I am an art collector and retired museum profession who now does occasional consulting. I do not now consider myself a truly notable person, and never have. In fact, I do not know why a page on me was ever created in the first place.

Especially troubling is the fact that the page is regularly reedited in what I consider a negative tone and an unbalanced viewpoint. This happened yet again recently when someone updated the page with new and accurate information, only to have one or more other editors remove most of that information and to cast the page negatively to the point of disparagement in my opinion.

Therefore, I formally request that the page "Charles L. Venable" be permanently deleted.

Sincerely,

Charles L. Venable

  • Keep, easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with significant coverage in several reliable sources, including three substantial articles in the NYT. If there's a problem with bias or undue coverage of events in his career, then let's fix the problem, rather than delete the article. There is some useful context at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Charles_L._Venable. If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines, then I'll withdraw my vote. Storchy ( talk) 11:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines - there isn't, just the recommendation that in borderline cases we acquiesce to their request. Primefac ( talk) 11:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete of marginal notability; depth of coverage does not seem present, except as being mentioned in a few articles in passing related to one single controversy. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this seems borderline enough to delete. -- Jayron 32 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep, per Storchy. I disagree that the notability here is a borderline case, or that everything is one controversy. This HuffPost article has some in-depth coverage of him, alongside coverage in this IndianpolisMonthly one and significant coverage in this ARTnews article, both of which are well before 2021. In conjunction with the mentioned NYT articles (including this extensive one), notability seems firmly established. I agree with Storchy that this is not a solution to the stated problem (though it does not seem like the article covers anything too much with undue weight either).-- Cerebral726 ( talk) 12:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep agree it could use a bit more balance, but coverage is coverage, good and bad. I see notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Do you consider that the notability extends beyond one event? CT55555 ( talk) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes, he's the author of several scholarly texts and worked at the art museum. The "stuff" that happened is neither here nor there, but it helps establish notability, given the extensive NYTY feature. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    You are correct, I misjudged the BLP one event thing, User:Cerebral726 corrected me on that below. CT55555 ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete Weak delete (updated to weak after reading solid counter arguments) As per the very specific guidance contained within WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that seems to exactly match this scenario: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. CT55555 ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I will say, it remains to be determined whether there is "no rough consensus", so I'm not sure basing your argument on that policy makes sense to me. The consensus/lack of consensus needs to be reached before WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Yeah, fair, I guess I was pre-empting things a bit there, maybe the spirit of it still applies. I suppose to some extent I was running on empathy and trying to find policy to fit my opinion. I'll try harder to make my argument: Let's consider:
  1. Is this guy really notable beyond one event? (The event: www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/arts/design/indianapolis-museum-job-posting.html)
  2. Is that one negative event being used as a WP:COATRACK to justify keeping the article? i.e. it seems like the guy did something bad, lost his job over it, and wasn't a notable guy before that, but now we are using that to justify keeping an article up about him? I advocate for a bit of kindness for a retired museum curators desire for privacy. Check out this paragraph: https://webot.org/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#The_Attack_Article CT55555 ( talk) 14:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Thanks for the thoughful response. I would assert the three articles I linked ( this HuffPost article, this IndianpolisMonthly one, and this ARTnews article) are certainly enough to establish notability outside of the one event and pre-date the job posting event. The article also includes plenty of content about the good he did at the museums he's headed, despite the fact that a significant portion of coverage of him is about the multiple (instituting an admission fee, populism over traditional art displays, deaccession work, to name a few from the linked sources) controversial (not necessarily bad, but certainly controversial) decisions he made as head of the IMA/Newfields. It is not an overly critical article in my opinion, and is certainly not so damning that it justifies deleting the article when there is such evident notability versus trying in places to make the article more balanced where it is needed. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Thanks. I think you've refuted any "one event" basis to my delete argument, so I concede that.
    My empathy for people not wanting articles about them, combined with him not being high profile, leads me to remain advocating for deletion, but I see that the strength of my delete is diminished by your fair and reasonable arguments. CT55555 ( talk) 15:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    He's written at least 3 notable books and several articles in peer-reviewed journals, he certainly passes our requirements for academics. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes. I see that now. I now consider that he meets the notability criteria, but still advocate for delete on the basis people's right to privacy, and his notability not being high, him seeming to get publicity without seeking it. I should maybe say "weak delete" as I recognise I'm making a weaker argument than I thought I was when I started. CT55555 ( talk) 15:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    My impression is that having details of the "stuff" that happened to him posted here isn't helping his cred in the art world. It's not our concern, so long as the presentation here is fair and balanced. NPOV Oaktree b ( talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Do you consider there is any policy that would support some empathy in these circumstances (not very high profile person, wanting deletion)? CT55555 ( talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I would argue that the article's coverage already shows empathy by following WP:DUE. The article matches coverage readily available all over the internet, and the service Wikipedia provides as an amalgamation of that information is valuable enough that it outweighs one person's discomfort with it all being presented in a single place. Further, I would assert that Venable doesn't really qualify as a WP:LOWPROFILE person. The linked essay includes examples of "has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", and "has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." He has intentionally promoted himself multiple times to promote Newfields and the museum's he has headed, and given multiple interviews. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Ok. All fair points. I'm currently somewhere between weak delete and abstain. CT55555 ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep he's been deputy director of a major American art museum and an important director of two regional art museums. His work attracted national attention and national media coverage in more than one place and at more than one time. Jahaza ( talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Weak delete I have done a substantial amount of editing on this page. I think that it tends to be a leaning a little critical. If making the article more neutral is not an option, than I would vote to delete it as per his request. Candied tangerine ( talk) 18:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    It is definitely an option to make the article more neutral. However, I'm not sure which aspects are overly critical beyond what is WP:DUE and well sourced. Do you have an opinion on what particular sections need to be edited? Cerebral726 ( talk) 18:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Stanisław Roman Lewandowski

Stanisław Roman Lewandowski (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Nothing to indicate notability. The page has 1 sentence. Would be better to expand on (?) Réunion ( talk!) 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone ( talk) 18:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment - Based on his article in Polish WP [1] and Ukranian WP, [2] it appears that notability exists. It would be great if an editor fluent in either language could have a look at the citations in those Wikipedias. He has a biography in this book: [3] and the other language articles have additional citations, unfortunately, I am not fluent in Polish or Ukranian. Netherzone ( talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yeah, I agree - I think there's gotta be some reason that this person is still on enwiki. Just confused why there's nothing else than the one sentence. Réunion ( talk!) 23:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    My guess is that the person who created it intended to expand it (or hoped someone else would) but never got around to it. Netherzone ( talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. The person is clearly notable, per pl wiki article and its sourcing (ex. this reliable source: [4]) and WP:BEFORE (second hit I get on Google books is a bioraphical note abut him), which it appears the nominator failed to do. The article is, granted, a sub-stub, tagged as such, and arguably warranting a {{ notability}} as in the current form that is not apparent, but since a cursory search is sufficient to prove said notability, the nom is cautioned to use a template (or preferably, spend a few minutes translating content from Polish Wikipedia) rather than sending such topics here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep Checking his Wikidata entry he seems to have a number of external IDs which suggest that he's notable, for example entries in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine and the Austrian Biographical Encylopedia Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep - He meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary per the two national biographic dictionaries/encyclopedias mentioned by Piecesofuk. Likely meets WP:GNG based on citations in Polish & Ukranian WP, and the entry found by Piotrus. Netherzone ( talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Faye Toogood

Faye Toogood (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability. All sources except one include interviews with the subject which casts doubt on their independence. Promotional in tone. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Keep - A WP:BEFORE search shows many hits that support WP:GNG, Google Book search reveals a monograph on her work published by Phaidon Press: Faye Toogood: Drawing, Material, Sculpture, Landscape [5], and is in these books: Woman Made: Great Women Designers [6], Atlas of Interior Design [7] A Modern Way to Live: 5 Design Principles from The Modern House [8], Life Meets Art Inside the Homes of the World's Most Creative People, [9], The Modern House [10], By Design: The World's Best Contemporary Interior Designers [11]. She also meets WP:NARTIST as her work is included in the collections of several notable museums, Philadelphia Museum of Art [12], the High Museum of Art, [13], Corning Museum of Glass, [14], the National Gallery of Victoria, Melborne [15], Dallas Museum of Art, [16], the RISD Museum, [17], the Denver Museum of Art, [18]. Additionally she has exhibited her work at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the and many other notable museums. Obviously the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone ( talk) 16:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Arts. Netherzone ( talk) 16:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per @ Netherzone:'s WP:HEY effort to add these RS to the article, which clearly establish GNG and NARTIST on several vectors. Well done. Theredproject ( talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep Can see enough reliable sources to be here. Owlf 📪 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep added birth year with citation. clarified 2020 show. Added VIAF data to wikidata and linked. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the good reasons mentioned above, has a clear pass at criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST CT55555 ( talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per sources presented and clear pass of WP:ARTIST via inclusion of works in permanent collections. I also tend to agree that merely including interview elements does not invalidate a source that's published somewhere respectable, ie not known for writing articles for money. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Comment I too can see mentions in books but what I cannot see is what those books say. In my before search I was unable, and remain unable, to see any independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject. Until and unless someone can provide abstracts from these sources that demonstrate that they meet the needs of WP:GNG, I will remain of the view that notability has not been met. Any interviews are very rarely going to be independent, and the refs given certainly are not. There was no suggestion by me that either the subject or the journalist had been paid - that isn't the issue. The issue is that an interview is rarely independent - it doesn't usually present both sides of an argument unless it is a grilling of a politician which these refs certainly are not.   Velella   Velella Talk   19:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Hello @ Velella, she meets WP:NARTIST by way of the collections in several notable museums. She also meets WP:GNG as there is a monograph book solely about her from Phaidon Press, a top-notch publisher of art & design books - that is considered significant coverage per WP:N aside from her inclusion in other books. Phaidon does not publish junk. There is a lot of material online about her (in addition to sources that are not online) for example, a review of her work in Pin-up Magazine HERE, five articles in Denzeen HERE, Gallerie Magazine calls her a "British superstar artist, designer" in this article HERE, and more. It's perplexing that you are not seeing these items in your BEFORE, perhaps we are "googling" from different geographic locations which might have a impact on what you are able to find. Here in the US, I'm finding tons of material. Netherzone ( talk) 01:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Keep I see many citations with a simple google news search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Faye+Toogood%22&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&biw=1920&bih=929&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ56pRpCDdNe53ATMj4CXfUhkvUoA%3A1653619251469&ei=MzqQYrybHJThwbkPwfS14AY&ved=0ahUKEwj8gM_g0_73AhWUcDABHUF6DWwQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Faye+Toogood%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIECAAQQzIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQ1DCBVjuF2CMHGgAcAB4AIABa4gBtgKSAQMxLjKYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-news I think it passes WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 02:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Artists' Bluebook

Artists' Bluebook (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Looks like a dead-end page only with irrelevant external links. A possible candidate for deletion? Abani79 ( talk) 11:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Joseph Scarpinito

Joseph Scarpinito (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Promotional and fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Easily confused Buddhist representations

Easily confused Buddhist representations (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

The article title and the article is WP:SYNTHESIS about various Buddhist deities, which are "easily confused". The "Easily confused Buddhist representations" has no academic basis and is an WP:OR term. We already have articles Buddhahood, Buddharupa and Boddhisattva, where the referenced information can be suitably merged. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Delete. Maybe you guys can tell the lady at our neighborhood temple who that is in her statue. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Johnbod, sorry, I was trying to say that even members of a sangha can be confused. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not sure why that's an argument for deletion though. It's silly in a title (or not the wiki way) but there's no doubt that non-Buddhists and no doubt many Buddhists can be "easily confused" as to the identity of eg the main and other images in shrines, & an attempt to redress this has a place somewhere on wp. Johnbod ( talk) 14:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Johnbod, Buddharupa includes the iconography of the Buddha. I have merged the Dhyani Buddha part in the Five Tathāgatas, but a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable. Also, leaving a "crap" title redirect to any other article seems to be not a good option.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I wasn't suggesting a merge leaving a redirect, though that could anyway be dealt with separately if you dislike it that much. Buddharupa badly needs a rename - I had no idea that was what it was about, and had never looked at it. No wonder it gets under 60 views a day, and has not been developed much. It's pretty inadequate. I don't really see why "a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable" actually. At the very least, the references here are much better than those at Buddharupa (very poor) even if little use is made of most of them. We have so ridiculously little on Buddhist art, it seems perverse to set about deleting stuff. In fact, Buddharupa claims at the start to cover images of all Buddhas, but in fact only covers Gautama, so this stuff would (all) be useful additions there. Btw, the Visual arts sort list is the correct one for this, not "Arts". Johnbod ( talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
We should stick with Buddharupa, and rename it, for now. The point of the article under discussion is that is is principally about images of other buddhas, not Gautama. Johnbod ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I've also redirected Buddha in art there, for now. I'm happy to merge this (Easily Confused..) into Buddharupa. I think at some point we need to decide whether a single "Buddhas in art" (all of them) or two articles: "Gautama/The Buddha in art" plus one on other Buddhas in art. If the articles were better they might need splitting on grounds of length. An alternative is to move this to a title to be decided - maybe Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art - and clarify that the scope of Buddharupa is just images of Gautama (and renaming it). In that case I could start an expansion of this one, which lacks many of the most basic points. Johnbod ( talk) 01:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
[19] [20] Buddharupa should cover only Gautama Buddha. Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand (which started as Iconography of the Buddha) has common elements of the Buddha iconography. Would suggest merging into Buddharupa and having an article Iconography of Gautama Buddha or likewise. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Well, I'm happy to keep Buddharupa to cover only Gautama Buddha, which really only involves changing the first senence. But probably this should be proposed at the talk there. In that case I would suggest keeping this, renaming and re-writing it. Some would survive. I'm not so sure about merging Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand, which works well as a more local article. Again, that would need a discussion there. Johnbod ( talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete/Merge or at the very least rename, The argument for deletion are mainly aginsy poor title, which may be renamed; else content can be merged in relevant pages. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 04:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep/Merge, this article has plenty of sources to make it notable. If it can't get kept then the information could be added to other pages. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I've started Talk:Buddharupa#Clarifying_the_scope per the above - to clarify that that article just covers Gautama, as it actually does, but not as the lead says. Johnbod ( talk) 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep/Merge or at the very least rename per Johnbod. Huggums537 ( talk) 04:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly consensus that something might be done with this material, but there is not yet consensus on exactly what - whether rename or merge, and if so, to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 09:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Arts

Arts Templates for deletion


Arts template for delention

  • ((Wikipedia:template for deletion/log/2008 November 2#template:uk underground))

Arts Proposed deletions


Visual arts

George Floyd mural

George Floyd mural (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Completely subsumed by the disambiguation page George Floyd memorial (disambiguation), which is perfectly serviceable, much more comprehensive, and created by the same editor who made this one. On top of that, this page only features two links: one of which is to an actual article, but the other of which is to a short section of the article George Floyd Square occupied protest. Even if this page weren't wholly redundant to the other disambiguation page, there would still be no compelling argument for keeping it, because it only exists to link to one article and one relatively narrow portion of another. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Charles L. Venable

Charles L. Venable (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Nomination on behalf of the subject, whose request ( with permission) is copied below. Primefac ( talk) 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Dear Wikipedia:

I am the subject of a Wikipedia page named "Charles L. Venable." I am an art collector and retired museum profession who now does occasional consulting. I do not now consider myself a truly notable person, and never have. In fact, I do not know why a page on me was ever created in the first place.

Especially troubling is the fact that the page is regularly reedited in what I consider a negative tone and an unbalanced viewpoint. This happened yet again recently when someone updated the page with new and accurate information, only to have one or more other editors remove most of that information and to cast the page negatively to the point of disparagement in my opinion.

Therefore, I formally request that the page "Charles L. Venable" be permanently deleted.

Sincerely,

Charles L. Venable

  • Keep, easily meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG with significant coverage in several reliable sources, including three substantial articles in the NYT. If there's a problem with bias or undue coverage of events in his career, then let's fix the problem, rather than delete the article. There is some useful context at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Charles_L._Venable. If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines, then I'll withdraw my vote. Storchy ( talk) 11:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    If there's a Wikipedia policy that the subject's wishes take priority over notability guidelines - there isn't, just the recommendation that in borderline cases we acquiesce to their request. Primefac ( talk) 11:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete of marginal notability; depth of coverage does not seem present, except as being mentioned in a few articles in passing related to one single controversy. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this seems borderline enough to delete. -- Jayron 32 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep, per Storchy. I disagree that the notability here is a borderline case, or that everything is one controversy. This HuffPost article has some in-depth coverage of him, alongside coverage in this IndianpolisMonthly one and significant coverage in this ARTnews article, both of which are well before 2021. In conjunction with the mentioned NYT articles (including this extensive one), notability seems firmly established. I agree with Storchy that this is not a solution to the stated problem (though it does not seem like the article covers anything too much with undue weight either).-- Cerebral726 ( talk) 12:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep agree it could use a bit more balance, but coverage is coverage, good and bad. I see notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Do you consider that the notability extends beyond one event? CT55555 ( talk) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes, he's the author of several scholarly texts and worked at the art museum. The "stuff" that happened is neither here nor there, but it helps establish notability, given the extensive NYTY feature. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    You are correct, I misjudged the BLP one event thing, User:Cerebral726 corrected me on that below. CT55555 ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete Weak delete (updated to weak after reading solid counter arguments) As per the very specific guidance contained within WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that seems to exactly match this scenario: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. CT55555 ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I will say, it remains to be determined whether there is "no rough consensus", so I'm not sure basing your argument on that policy makes sense to me. The consensus/lack of consensus needs to be reached before WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Yeah, fair, I guess I was pre-empting things a bit there, maybe the spirit of it still applies. I suppose to some extent I was running on empathy and trying to find policy to fit my opinion. I'll try harder to make my argument: Let's consider:
  1. Is this guy really notable beyond one event? (The event: www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/arts/design/indianapolis-museum-job-posting.html)
  2. Is that one negative event being used as a WP:COATRACK to justify keeping the article? i.e. it seems like the guy did something bad, lost his job over it, and wasn't a notable guy before that, but now we are using that to justify keeping an article up about him? I advocate for a bit of kindness for a retired museum curators desire for privacy. Check out this paragraph: https://webot.org/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles#The_Attack_Article CT55555 ( talk) 14:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Thanks for the thoughful response. I would assert the three articles I linked ( this HuffPost article, this IndianpolisMonthly one, and this ARTnews article) are certainly enough to establish notability outside of the one event and pre-date the job posting event. The article also includes plenty of content about the good he did at the museums he's headed, despite the fact that a significant portion of coverage of him is about the multiple (instituting an admission fee, populism over traditional art displays, deaccession work, to name a few from the linked sources) controversial (not necessarily bad, but certainly controversial) decisions he made as head of the IMA/Newfields. It is not an overly critical article in my opinion, and is certainly not so damning that it justifies deleting the article when there is such evident notability versus trying in places to make the article more balanced where it is needed. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Thanks. I think you've refuted any "one event" basis to my delete argument, so I concede that.
    My empathy for people not wanting articles about them, combined with him not being high profile, leads me to remain advocating for deletion, but I see that the strength of my delete is diminished by your fair and reasonable arguments. CT55555 ( talk) 15:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    He's written at least 3 notable books and several articles in peer-reviewed journals, he certainly passes our requirements for academics. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yes. I see that now. I now consider that he meets the notability criteria, but still advocate for delete on the basis people's right to privacy, and his notability not being high, him seeming to get publicity without seeking it. I should maybe say "weak delete" as I recognise I'm making a weaker argument than I thought I was when I started. CT55555 ( talk) 15:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    My impression is that having details of the "stuff" that happened to him posted here isn't helping his cred in the art world. It's not our concern, so long as the presentation here is fair and balanced. NPOV Oaktree b ( talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Do you consider there is any policy that would support some empathy in these circumstances (not very high profile person, wanting deletion)? CT55555 ( talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • I would argue that the article's coverage already shows empathy by following WP:DUE. The article matches coverage readily available all over the internet, and the service Wikipedia provides as an amalgamation of that information is valuable enough that it outweighs one person's discomfort with it all being presented in a single place. Further, I would assert that Venable doesn't really qualify as a WP:LOWPROFILE person. The linked essay includes examples of "has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", and "has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." He has intentionally promoted himself multiple times to promote Newfields and the museum's he has headed, and given multiple interviews. -- Cerebral726 ( talk) 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Ok. All fair points. I'm currently somewhere between weak delete and abstain. CT55555 ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep he's been deputy director of a major American art museum and an important director of two regional art museums. His work attracted national attention and national media coverage in more than one place and at more than one time. Jahaza ( talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Weak delete I have done a substantial amount of editing on this page. I think that it tends to be a leaning a little critical. If making the article more neutral is not an option, than I would vote to delete it as per his request. Candied tangerine ( talk) 18:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    It is definitely an option to make the article more neutral. However, I'm not sure which aspects are overly critical beyond what is WP:DUE and well sourced. Do you have an opinion on what particular sections need to be edited? Cerebral726 ( talk) 18:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Dmytro Kozatsky

Dmytro Kozatsky (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not notable. During the Azovstal siege, a number of fighters' photos were published in international media because the facility was not accessible to the press. This does not give them notability in my view. The two main WP:RSs are the Euronews article and the Guardian article. In the latter, he is literally mentioned only for a photo credit, ergo not WP:SIGCOV. In the former, the main subject are the photos by him – it's not, in any meaningful sense, an article about him or even his photography but a way to show the photos, I therefore would not consider it coverage of him. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland

List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:LISTN. A seemingly random list, missing many entries (even the very first one, from 1902, Christian IX). Abandoned since its inception in 2010, with hardly anyone interested in it (25 views in 90 days). Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason. Fram ( talk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Keep: I feel the list is useful as an end in itself, as one of the series [ [26]] and as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages eg: Jon Thorkelsson, Einar Bendiktsson and Ingibjörg Einarsdóttir. (I made the page long ago - to fit in with the series. But no worries if such pages are not needed/desired). ( Msrasnw ( talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC))[ reply]
    • Many similar pages have already been deleted, and many more are up for deletion. The article should really be able to stand on its own merits, and not as part of a list. Fram ( talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to show this topic has been covered adequately as a whole to justify a list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete, very little sourcing or verifiability, as is the norm for all the "List of people on the postage stamps of X" lists. Ten Pound Hammer( What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 18:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep: the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts. Thus, this list is better curated than List of Icelanders. Bw -- Orland ( talk) 21:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • That the people on a list are notable people is not a reason to keep a list, we can create thousands of lists of notable people ("list of people who had a photograph on the front page of newspaper X") but this doesn't mean that the list has a place on Wikipedia (at least not as an article, it may make a perfect list for in project space as an indicator for editors which people don't have an article yet). Fram ( talk) 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • @ Fram: I understand your point. But very differently from a newspaper's daily rush of deadlines and 15 minutes of fame, a stamp programme and policy such as this one, is edited and curated to establish a image of the country. There is an overall idea behind a stamp programme, reflecting national identity over time. Bw Orland ( talk) 12:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        • Actually, for many countries it is also a case of "which stamps will sell the best to collectors worldwide", a purely commercial enterprise. If there are actually good, indepth sources discussing the group of stamps in this list (from the position of them being a representation of national pride or from other perspectives), then a discussion can be had about it: but for now, your arguments are not supported by any sources. Fram ( talk) 12:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
          • To be honest, your underlying assumption that Icelandic stamps might be published with a "selling to collectors" perspective are also not supported by any sources. :-) Bw Orland ( talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
            • There are clear indications that some postage stamps are created for sale to collectors, and some places have a large part of their economy built on such actions. Philatelycruft is not only bad because it creates poor articles lacking good sourcing, but beause it focuses so much on trivial minutia that it obscures understanding of broader topics. The same happens where we create an article on every high school instead of focusing on braod articles on trends in education over time. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • We lack in-depth reliable source coverage of the topic of this list as a group. At best we maybe should redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, but only if we can really explain why people on postage stamps is so much more notable than places, animals or things pictures on postage stamps, or abstruct designs or blank colors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • And look, the article I linked to is undersourced, poorly written, and leaves one wondering, how was mail service done in Iceland for over 100 years if they were not issuing postage stamps? Getting good articles is often obstructed by creating lots of permastub, unsourced and undersouced articles on trivial aspects of the topic. What is important is how the postal service operated in Iceland, what matters very little is what the physical appearane of stamps was, let alone what one sub-set of the pictures chosen for the stamps was. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • The article is mainly about postage stamps and their appearnce, and does not enough discuss the more important issue which is how accesible postal service was in Iceland. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable. I’m not sure why all of these articles are being suggested for deletion. All of them meet general notability and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 23:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • What sources that are relaible and secondary provide general coverage of this topic as a group? Not everyone put on a postage stamp is historically significant. There have been people but on postage stamps for winning children's art competitions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
      • You seem to have some grudges against this theme, John. Yes, it is true that there are some stamps existing somewhere it this world that are based on children’s drawings. Yes, it is true that some countries issue stamps with Mickey Mouse, foreign footballers etc. Yes, it is true that there is another article - about Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, that is not in good shape and is not an example of Wikipedia’s best practice. But neither of these matters could be used as an argument against this article that we discuss now. It seem quite obvious that Iceland, like the other Nordic countries, have a conservative and patriotic stamp policy, where people are depicted on stamps because of their role and importance in the nation’s history and identity. Bw Orland ( talk) 06:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
        I agree with Orland. In this particular article, the notability of the subject matter is particularly clearly established. However, I also don’t think a list of stamp subjects that did happen to include soccer players or cartoon characters or is based on children’s drawings, etc., automatically fails to meet general notability guidelines, provided the author has cited his or her sources. I think listing a group of these articles simply out of dislike for the subject matter would be inappropriate. This one, at least as far as I can tell, should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 08:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    • A completely empty claim of "is notable" and "meet general notability" without any evidence to back this up. Fram ( talk) 08:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I’m not seeing a lot of evidence presented as to why a list that includes kings and historic figures that represent the country and are appropriately cited would NOT meet general notability guidelines. As a general reader, I would find it of interest and would be equally interested in looking up a list of stamps featured in other countries. Wikipedia is certainly read by the general reader. If in doubt, information should be kept, not deleted. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Because there are no sources that treat the topic as a group? You may claim to be interested, but it is equally obvious that in the many years that this and similar lists existed, hardly any actual reader visited these pages. Fram ( talk) 09:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Does that mean it ought to be deleted? I think information is of value, no matter how specialist or niche it might be. If some stamp collector or kid researching a school report comes along and clicks on that link every few months, it still has some value. You’re not presenting any arguments I find persuasive to delete it. It is what it is, a list of historically significant figures on official stamps produced by Iceland and considered significant to the Icelandic people, with acceptable citations that support it as such. It shouldn’t be deleted just because someone thinks it’s trivial and hardly anyone ever reads it, which might be true, but isn’t relevant. The point is that someone might come along and want to read it and there’s no real reason why it shouldn’t be here when they want to. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I doubt any stamp collector would use our poor lists instead of an actual catalogue (paper, or one of the good online ones). And there are countless lists someone cound create with your rationale of "someone might find it useful" and "the people on the list are notable". A list of people who appeared on the front page of newspaper X would also be verifiable, and contain mostly notable people. It wouldn't make it a good subject for a list here though. Not all information, even verifiable, even about notable people, is fit for Wikipedia; the presentation, the grouping, the summary of it also needs to be an already discussed topic, and not some grouping one or a few editors believe to be interesting. The possibility to create verifiable lists is nearly endless, that's why we have LISTN to curb this somewhat. Fram ( talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
We’re back to the difference in philosophy again. There’s no reason Wikipedia should NOT contain such a list, provided references are given to support the facts as presented, as they are here. It’s not a matter of space. No one is saying the list is not accurate. If either of those things were true, yes, it should be gone. The current article could probably be improved upon and should be if additional references are found. But it is certainly worthy of being kept as it currently is and some 10-year-old will find it a useful resource for a report on Iceland or someone with a passing interest in the subject will use it as a starting point and might look up more in depth resources on the subject. Again, I am not a deletionist. I see no good reason to delete suitably referenced articles just for the sake of deleting them. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 10:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
There is a clear policy against having articles that are not supported by multiple indepdent reliable secondary sources that give in-depth treatment of the subject. In the case of a list it needs to be the subject as a whole. We do not have sourcing that meets that description for this subject. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Stanisław Roman Lewandowski

Stanisław Roman Lewandowski (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Nothing to indicate notability. The page has 1 sentence. Would be better to expand on (?) Réunion ( talk!) 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone ( talk) 18:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment - Based on his article in Polish WP [27] and Ukranian WP, [28] it appears that notability exists. It would be great if an editor fluent in either language could have a look at the citations in those Wikipedias. He has a biography in this book: [29] and the other language articles have additional citations, unfortunately, I am not fluent in Polish or Ukranian. Netherzone ( talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Yeah, I agree - I think there's gotta be some reason that this person is still on enwiki. Just confused why there's nothing else than the one sentence. Réunion ( talk!) 23:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    My guess is that the person who created it intended to expand it (or hoped someone else would) but never got around to it. Netherzone ( talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. The person is clearly notable, per pl wiki article and its sourcing (ex. this reliable source: [30]) and WP:BEFORE (second hit I get on Google books is a bioraphical note abut him), which it appears the nominator failed to do. The article is, granted, a sub-stub, tagged as such, and arguably warranting a {{ notability}} as in the current form that is not apparent, but since a cursory search is sufficient to prove said notability, the nom is cautioned to use a template (or preferably, spend a few minutes translating content from Polish Wikipedia) rather than sending such topics here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep Checking his Wikidata entry he seems to have a number of external IDs which suggest that he's notable, for example entries in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine and the Austrian Biographical Encylopedia Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep - He meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary per the two national biographic dictionaries/encyclopedias mentioned by Piecesofuk. Likely meets WP:GNG based on citations in Polish & Ukranian WP, and the entry found by Piotrus. Netherzone ( talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Faye Toogood

Faye Toogood (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability. All sources except one include interviews with the subject which casts doubt on their independence. Promotional in tone. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Keep - A WP:BEFORE search shows many hits that support WP:GNG, Google Book search reveals a monograph on her work published by Phaidon Press: Faye Toogood: Drawing, Material, Sculpture, Landscape [31], and is in these books: Woman Made: Great Women Designers [32], Atlas of Interior Design [33] A Modern Way to Live: 5 Design Principles from The Modern House [34], Life Meets Art Inside the Homes of the World's Most Creative People, [35], The Modern House [36], By Design: The World's Best Contemporary Interior Designers [37]. She also meets WP:NARTIST as her work is included in the collections of several notable museums, Philadelphia Museum of Art [38], the High Museum of Art, [39], Corning Museum of Glass, [40], the National Gallery of Victoria, Melborne [41], Dallas Museum of Art, [42], the RISD Museum, [43], the Denver Museum of Art, [44]. Additionally she has exhibited her work at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the and many other notable museums. Obviously the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone ( talk) 16:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Arts. Netherzone ( talk) 16:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per @ Netherzone:'s WP:HEY effort to add these RS to the article, which clearly establish GNG and NARTIST on several vectors. Well done. Theredproject ( talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep Can see enough reliable sources to be here. Owlf 📪 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep added birth year with citation. clarified 2020 show. Added VIAF data to wikidata and linked. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the good reasons mentioned above, has a clear pass at criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST CT55555 ( talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per sources presented and clear pass of WP:ARTIST via inclusion of works in permanent collections. I also tend to agree that merely including interview elements does not invalidate a source that's published somewhere respectable, ie not known for writing articles for money. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Comment I too can see mentions in books but what I cannot see is what those books say. In my before search I was unable, and remain unable, to see any independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject. Until and unless someone can provide abstracts from these sources that demonstrate that they meet the needs of WP:GNG, I will remain of the view that notability has not been met. Any interviews are very rarely going to be independent, and the refs given certainly are not. There was no suggestion by me that either the subject or the journalist had been paid - that isn't the issue. The issue is that an interview is rarely independent - it doesn't usually present both sides of an argument unless it is a grilling of a politician which these refs certainly are not.   Velella   Velella Talk   19:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Hello @ Velella, she meets WP:NARTIST by way of the collections in several notable museums. She also meets WP:GNG as there is a monograph book solely about her from Phaidon Press, a top-notch publisher of art & design books - that is considered significant coverage per WP:N aside from her inclusion in other books. Phaidon does not publish junk. There is a lot of material online about her (in addition to sources that are not online) for example, a review of her work in Pin-up Magazine HERE, five articles in Denzeen HERE, Gallerie Magazine calls her a "British superstar artist, designer" in this article HERE, and more. It's perplexing that you are not seeing these items in your BEFORE, perhaps we are "googling" from different geographic locations which might have a impact on what you are able to find. Here in the US, I'm finding tons of material. Netherzone ( talk) 01:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Keep I see many citations with a simple google news search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Faye+Toogood%22&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&biw=1920&bih=929&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ56pRpCDdNe53ATMj4CXfUhkvUoA%3A1653619251469&ei=MzqQYrybHJThwbkPwfS14AY&ved=0ahUKEwj8gM_g0_73AhWUcDABHUF6DWwQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Faye+Toogood%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIECAAQQzIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEB4QBzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQ1DCBVjuF2CMHGgAcAB4AIABa4gBtgKSAQMxLjKYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-news I think it passes WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 02:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Artists' Bluebook

Artists' Bluebook (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Looks like a dead-end page only with irrelevant external links. A possible candidate for deletion? Abani79 ( talk) 11:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

The Jim Morrison Triptych

The Jim Morrison Triptych (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Insufficient Secondary RS to establish N. T. E. Breitenbach is probably notable by virtue of his Rome Prize, though the article seems a bit looong for the scope of his career. Proverbidioms seems like it passes notability on its own b/c of its significant cultural impact. But this one seems like a stretch. A combo of WP:OR and a bit of belief that notability is inherited from Morrison. The creator/primary author of the article is a WP:SPA working on these three articles. Theredproject ( talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject ( talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep, a 2010 article which has been improved over the years and seems well sourced. Jim Morrison collaborated on the painting and defined its contents and subjects, so this is not inherited web-centered notability (per nom link) but a genuine collaboration between two artists. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Delete seems well sourced is absurd. There is one on-line source, the website of the creator of the painting that is the subject of the article. The book by Silva has an ISBN number that yields not results, is not listed in worldcat and doesn't appear to be held in any libraries for us to consult. Davis does mention Breitenbach in Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend, on page 390: "He even had the album jacket in mind when he replied to a letter from a college art student, T.E. Breitenbach, who had sent Jim samples of his work ...". That is not well-sourced, that is very poorly sourced. This painting is in no collection and has not been the subject of independent, critical reviews. The only coverage it has received is in Wikipedia and Wikipedia clones. Vexations ( talk) 14:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
The Davis quote continues past the ellipses and appears to be quoted in the article. I don't have the book, but if quoted correctly and not misrepresented in the article it would be a good source from a major Morrison bio. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
That's what ellipses are for: they indicate an omission. The complete text is:
"Around this time, Jim decided to record another solo poetry session. If the work sounded good, he told his friends, he could release a spoken word album. He spoke with movie composer Lalo Schifrin about providing orchestral settings for some of these poems. He even had the album jacket in mind when he replied to a letter from a college art student, T. E. Breitenbach, who had sent Jim samples of his work—clearly showing that Jim was actively and creatively engaged in the preproduction of the album". It goes on to say: "The letter was typed, probably by Jim’s secretary, Kathy Lisciandro, dated October 9, 1970. In it he asked Breitenbach to do a triptych, the left panel depicting “a radiant moonlit beach and an endless stream of naked young couples running silently along the water’s edge,” where “a tiny infant grins at the universe, and around his crib stand several ancient, old people.” In the center panel would be “a modern city or metropolis of the future at noon, insane with activity,” and the right panel “a view through a car windshield at night on a long straight desert highway.” These vivid scenes of death and rebirth were reflective of the new beginning Jim himself was seeking. Jim closed the letter by assuring Breitenbach that if he could create “something related to these themes” in the next five months, Jim would use it".
It continues: "Included with Jim’s letter were signed first editions of The New Creatures and An American Prayer. In this letter, Jim seems to have two recent poems in mind, “Vast Radiant Beach” and “Come, They Crooned, the Ancient Ones.” T. E. Breitenbach finished the triptych a few months later, in 1971, but was informed by Kathy that James Morrison had moved to France for a while."
In my view, and I actually made an effort to track down and read the sources, that is not a sufficient basis for an article about a painting that has generated no critical discourse at all. It is an insignificant work by an art student who received a letter from Jim Morrison suggesting that he (Breitenbach) could make something he (Morrison) might use. The painting might have some significance if Morrison ever saw the painting and decided to use it for an album cover, be he never did. Vexations ( talk) 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thanks. The full quote easily confirms the bio as a major reputable source for the page. Not an easy one to spin any other way - Morrison took the artist up on his offer and then described exactly what he wanted in the painting. This was an agreed-upon collab. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
He didn't the artist up on his offer, he left for France and didn't use it. Vexations ( talk) 19:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
He, well, died in Paris? Pined for the fjords etc. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete or Merge into T. E. Breitenbach. On it's own there is not enough evidence to claim this is a notable painting, and I agree the sourcing is too weak to support GNG. Netherzone ( talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Itzchak Tarkay

Itzchak Tarkay (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

No RS to establish N. All sources are PRIMARY and/or PROMO sources. Theredproject ( talk) 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Sorry but just saying per above for a statement that is incorrect is WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb ( talk) 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep Though the article is skimpy at present, and many Google hits are from galleries that deal in his works, based on consistent descriptions across various references, Tarkay seems to qualify as a notable figurative artist under the criteria at WP:ARTIST. I've long been under the impression that he was "famous" (which I know is not the same as notable). Does anyone know of non-promo sources for artists in general? — RCraig09 ( talk) 20:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Look again! There is more to WP:NARTIST than that! gidonb ( talk) 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
OK Beyond ARTIST 1a also ARTIST 4c is met per article 1 above and [45]. gidonb ( talk) 01:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment gidonb Please translate critical review in Israel's "newspaper of record" into English and add as an inline citation to the article if is adds to notability. Your link out to "The Business of Being an Artist" has no page numbers. Ditto "Common Threads: Nine Widows' Journeys Through Love, Loss, and Healing". Alfred J. Harradine referring to Tarkay as as "the great Jewish painter" doesn't add any credibility as the book is not about the subject or even art. Again, the main source of this article a a press release issued by the controversial dealer Park West Gallery and it does does not establish notability. The article has not been improved in any way since the AfD. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
The statements above and opinions below conflict with WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The bold is in the source for very good reasons. So we will not disregard. The book "without page numbers" is a distinguished publication, distributed by Simon & Schuster. This may be their way to publish through Google Books or some other fashion. The argument sounds desperate. gidonb ( talk) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete enough time has passed since this was listed at AfD that if significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exists, those sources could have been added. Park West Gallery is not a reliable source. The sources that have been suggested, like ⁨⁨the one in Haaretz from 1961 don't convince me as significant coverage. I did notice that he's mentioned in DuBoff, Leonard D. (2017). Art law cases and materials (Second ed.). New York. ISBN  9781454887935. as possibly the only artist to ever use trade dress to protect his style from being emulated in Romm Art Creations Ltd. v. Simcha International, Inc. (Tarkay won) Unfortunately, what I do find more of is PR, like "The Ultimate Graphic Designer, Itzchak Tarkay, Leads the World's New Generation of Figurative Artists, and Will Appear at Opening Exhibit and Sale at Park West Gallery. Vexations ( talk) 18:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to pass WP:NARTIST Unbh ( talk) 12:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep this WP:N artist. IZAK ( talk) 20:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Your statement STRONGLY conflicts with the sources brought above. Tarkay had EXTREMELY INDEPENDENT critical reviews in Israel's sole newspaper of record [46] and in the Gazith Art & Literary Journal [47], satisfying WP:ARTIST #4c. There are many more fine sources about him above, in discussions of his unique legal case, and in Israeli press ( e.g.). Each should do their own research by WP:NEXIST. The very weak argument of the delete sayers here is your typical red herring argument. In despair, it keeps returning to the same references in the article that do not add to the notability of the artist but do not subtract from it either, while, in your case, shopping also in the many ways that one can satisfy WP:ARTIST. Reminding that there is absolutely no WP:BLP, WP:ARTIST, or WP:GNG concern. gidonb ( talk) 12:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I have removed said references and put in some of the excellent WP:V, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:RS sources that exist, rendering all the delete votes above totally irrelevant. They refer to stuff that just doesn't exist. I still need to put in the ones from the legal case. All this is against policy because the analysis if a topic is notable should be by WP:NEXIST. Neither the nominator, nor the the folks who "voted" per nom followed the rules and their !votes should consequently be discounted. gidonb ( talk) 12:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep: Noted artist, belonging to a tradition and noted for influencing others. Although most ghits relate to ongoing art for sale, these sales are incidental to the story of this artist and his art, and being ten years deceased, it is not profitable commercialism. Wikipedia needs more coverage of art and the arts generally, not less. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep Long career as a professional artist, just about notable, if only for the court case. Johnbod ( talk) 04:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment. This discussion is open already a long while and seems to be forgotten. No closure and no relisting since March 9. The keep supporters make a clear policy and guidelines-based case, based on WP:NARTIST #1a and #4c, the WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:RS. The delete supporters have made no policy and guidelines-based case. Their arguments are all over the place and are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:HERRING, and clear violations of WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, using such word as "seem" to mask the lack of serious research. I hope someone can close (or even relist) this, for a famous artist, unnecessary discussion. The most awkward argument was that great sources exist but there are in existence also lesser sources and therefore the article should be deleted. That is just not how notability works. gidonb ( talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep a professional artist and notable works, passes WP:ARTIST. Mahdiar86 ( talk) 10:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment. It's now well over three months into this nomination. The keep sayers have a clear quality and quantity edge. Since March 7 nobody thought this should be deleted. It just happens that the article was cleaned from sources that do not count towards the GNG and good sources were added, indicating that many delete sayers just throw a quick look at the article and do not work by NEXIST or BEFORE. gidonb ( talk) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment with link. I maintain my 'keep' !vote, and add the following link, which I realize is from a gallery that sells Tarkay's work. I don't think that being from a gallery should automatically disqualify a reference.
https://www.parkwestgallery.com/the-charming-style-and-juxtaposed-colors-of-itzchak-tarkay/ RCraig09 ( talk) 04:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thank you, RCraig09! This specific link does not add to the notability but is fine for data reference. It's not a problem. So many other sources do speak to the notability of Tarkay! gidonb ( talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review


Architecture

Jose Thenee

Jose Thenee (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Cannot find anything like enough in the article or online to pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Edwardx ( talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Kings Courtyard Inn

Kings Courtyard Inn (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable business (hotel), sources cited are primary, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media, travel booking and similar sites. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Few of the literally hundreds (or thousands?) of buildings in that district are mentioned in the 1977 documentation, not really a nomination per se because the district was among the list of super-obviously-worthy places recognized on the first day of the National Register of Historic Places program. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. Additional local old sources, not on the internet, surely exist. Sources to start with include "The Early Architecture of Charleston" (1970, u of sc press), and others cited in NRHP doc. And Charleston planning dept files and other files supporting the 1931 designation of the district as the very first historic district (protected by local ordinance and an architecture review board) in the U.S. This one absolutely is a contributing property: it was built in 1833 (very old, for the U.S.), and of an old wonderful style, Greek Revival architecture, which was just then developing (1820-1850) as the first deliberately non-British high style in the U.S. And it absolutely is in the district. And it has Egyptian Revival elements, and it is on the main historic street of Charleston. In old sources it will not be known by its modern name. For this large district listed before NRHP documentation got more elaborate, it is true that the individual buildings are not individually noted and described. A building like this elsewhere would likely be individually NEHP-listed. I created the article. Isn't it also recognized in Historic Hotels of America, a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation? Sure, the article would be improved by adding photos, but those will come. The talk page identifies it in places needing photos type category. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Re it is true that the individual buildings are not individually noted and described. Not so. A number of individual buildings are listed and described in the nomination form, and this isn't one of them. Deor ( talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
User:Deor, the doc mentions there 400! buildings having _major_ architectural or other importance, which i interpret to be significant on a national level, and lists something like 40 of the very most critical ones. It mentions on PDF page 3 that more than 650 buildings are deemed "valuable to architectural historians (and mentions a source, the compilation records of 1929). It doesn't list, like modern NRHP HD nominations do, all those having regional or local significance, nor does it list buildings which would have been deemed non-contributing 56 years ago. Many of those would likely now be considered contributing; other NRHP HDs get updated sometimes to deem more contributing after they have aged past the 50-year threshold. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete or at most merge into Charleston Historic District (though there doesn't seem to be a good place for that): notability is not inherited from the district it's in (if being a "contributing property" was enough, you could argue that any of the literally hundreds (or thousands?) of buildings in that district could be notable, even residential houses with no coverage). The National Trust for Historic Preservation is hardly official, being privately-funded and financially benefiting from the hotels (as they offer bookings and the like), hence not independent. The talk of architectural styles just screams WP:ILIKEIT and nothing that actually points to notability. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES has no weight unless these sources can actually be found. Looking on ProQuest and Newspapers.com, the vast majority are advertisements or mentions that certainly don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH (mentions in lists of other lodgings in the area, or at most one sentence about it) while the others (again, very few) are local, not meeting WP:AUD. Online sources consist essentially of just reviews. All in all, no evidence that this passes NCORP. eviolite (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Historic districts are do not give 'blanket coverage' to all buildings within it's borders; each building is determined to worthy of the status "contributing property" or not. Djflem ( talk) 03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Wenzell, Ron. (1983-11-20). "'Antique' Inn Offers Flavor Of the 1700's" ( 1 and 2). The State. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A 130-year-old building which formerly housed retail shops and a roller skating rink has been converted into one of Charleston's newest inns. Kings Courtyard Inn at 198 King St. opened this month in the heart of the port city's antique district, and in conjunction with the opening is sponsoring antique symposiums each Saturday through Dec. 10. ... Erected in 1853 in the Greek revival style with Egyptian detail, the three-story building is one of the oldest and largest in the block. The two upper floors were originally used as an inn, catering to visiting plantation owners and shipping magnates. High-quality shops occupied the ground floor. In later years, millinery, grocery, and antique stores were among the building's tenants, and in the 1930s the third floor became an indoor skating rink."

      This is an article about the antique symposiums it is sponsoring:

      Wenzell, Ron (1983-11-20). "A Look At The Historic Past". The State. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

    2. Ramsey, Molly. "Fodor's Expert Review: Kings Courtyard Inn". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

      The review notes: "Nestled on famed King Street in the heart of Charleston’s historic district is Kings Courtyard Inn—a charming, recently redesigned circa-1853 property boasting three peaceful open-air courtyards and cheerful guest suites. Getting to your room is a treat: you’ll wind your way through old-school outdoor (yet covered) wooden hallways. Once there, enjoy historic architecture, modern furnishings, and gobs of natural light. A wide selection of room layouts accommodates a range of travelers, from singles in town for business to small families; a few suites even allow dogs."

    3. Fielding, Geoffrey (1984-08-12). "Elegant inns offer Charleston charm". The Baltimore Sun. p. 1G. ProQuest  539020501.

      The article provides 137 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Just north on nearby King street is the Kings Courtyard Inn, which opened only last fall. Located in the center of Charleston's antique district, the inn was built in 1853. It was designed by Francis D. Lee, a noted architect, in the Greek Revival style and catered to plantation owners and merchant guests. During the years it has housed high-quality shops and private residences. The 34 rooms feature oversized beds, some with canopies, and many of the rooms have fireplaces. Many face one of the two interior courts. The amenities include sherry or wine upon arrival, and a continental breakfast — fruit, juice, pastries and coffee or tea — is served in the breakfast room, the courtyard, or the guest's room. Each evening the beds are turned down and complimentary brandy and chocolates are placed on the bedside tables."

    4. Perry, Lee Davis (2015). Insiders' Guide® to Charleston: Including Mt. Pleasant, Summerville, Kiawah, and Other Islands. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 56. ISBN  978-0-7627-9676-2. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Kings Courtyard Inn has an interesting history in that the building has come full circle in its lifetime The Greek Revival building, dating from 1853, began as an inn catering to 19th-century plantation owners and businessmen. Then it was a private residence; after that, the downstairs housed some of Charleston's most fashionable shops; and now it once again serves guests with luxury accommodations. ... This inn is part of the Charming Inns of Charleston group."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Simmons, Jean (1991-04-21). "Doing the Charleston: Sweet-dream lodgings in the heart of things". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides 72 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Kings Courtyard Inn. Guests enter through a simple doorway into an elegant fountain-adorned courtyard. Wine or sherry is served on arrival, brandy and chocolate at bedside, and a continental breakfast the next morning. Another AAA four-diamond winner with three stars from Mobil, this 34-room building was erected in 1853 and restored to maintain its Greek Revival-style with Egyptian overtones. Facilities include a breakfast room, cocktail lounge, two inner courtyards and a whirlpool."

      2. Mayle, Mary Carr (2014-02-09). "King Street Has Much in Common With Broughton\ - Developer Ben Carter Wants to Replicate the Success of Charleston Street in Savannah". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Charleston native Linn Lesesne and her husband Rick Widman own four hotels and two restaurants in Charleston. Their Kings Courtyard Inn and Fulton Lane Inn, both boutique hotels, as well as Kitchen 208, a casual dining establishment, are on King Street."

      3. Corris, John (1990-03-04). "Carolina stops prove interesting". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Richard T. Widman is the owner-manager of the Rutledge and the nearby Kings Courtyard Inn."

      4. Koppel, Dale (1998-06-07). "At Home in Charleston - A Night or So in a Two-Century-Old Carriage House Snuggled up to a Mansion Can Give You a Real Feel for History". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The 41-room Kings Courtyard Inn, built in 1853 in the Greek Revival style (with unusual Egyptian detail), is one of Charleston's most historic inns. This one has a courtyard spa and complimentary brandy at your bedside, next to the chocolates. For those who like an afternoon or evening cocktail, drinks are available in the courtyard bar. Standard rooms range from $135 in low season to $185 in high season. Larger rooms (with jacuzzi jets in the bathtubs) range from $155 to $205, depending on the season."

      5. Donnelly, Frank (1997-11-16). "Web sites boost interest in historic buildings". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "As owner of the historic John Rutledge House Inn and Kings Courtyard Inn in Charleston, S.C., Rick Widman knows competition for the vacation dollar is fierce. "

      6. Kujawa, Dawn (1993-01-24). "Valentine's the Perfect Reason to Plan a Romantic Weekend Getaway". The State. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Enter the Kings Courtyard Inn through a simple doorway into an elegant, fountain-adorned courtyard. Wine or sherry is served on arrival, brandy and chocolate at bedside, and a continental breakfast the next morning. Some rooms have canopied beds and fireplaces, and many have views of one of the two inner courtyards. From Feb. 10 through Feb. 14, rates begin at $105. From Feb. 15 through March 11, rates begin at $85. Information: 723-7000."

      7. Ronson, Jon (2013-04-19). "US road trip: from New York to Georgia". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "We stay at a sweet hotel – the Kings Courtyard Inn – where they're doing that southern thing, where all the guests are supposed to meet and chat and drink sherry before dinner. We don't attend because we're introverted and find it overwhelming to meet strangers on holiday."

      8. Starr, William (1988-03-05). "Charleston has 18th-century homes, walled gardens". Montreal Gazette. ProQuest  431604059.

        The article notes: "For instance, the Battery Carriage Inn, Indigo Inn, Church Street Inn, Vendue Inn, Elliott House, Kings Courtyard Inn, Meeting Street Inn, Planter's Inn and Two Meeting Street each offer a convenient location, a few oversize rooms with private baths, luxuriously furnished to the tastes of the most fastidious with lots of extras including breakfast served on a silver tray, a morning newspaper and gracious, informed hosts."

      9. McMillan, Cecily Deegan (1987-03-29). "What's Doing In; Charleston". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article provides 74 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Kings Courtyard Inn (198 King Street; Charleston, S.C. 29401; 800-845-6119), which has 34 rooms, is probably the most conveniently situated small inn in Charleston, standing as it does in a renovated Greek Revival building in the middle of the King Street shopping district. Free parking is available in the adjacent city lot. The rooms are small, but they encircle two courtyards where there are fountains, benches, tables, flowers and small trees. Rates start at $90 a night."

      10. Munday, Dave (2017-11-19). "Kings Courtyard Inn in downtown Charleston completes guest room overhaul". The Post and Courier. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The article notes: "Kings Courtyard Inn, which operates out of an 1853 building in downtown Charleston, has wrapped up a $500,000 renovation of its 41 guest rooms. ... The Kings Courtyard building is just south of Market Street. Originally, it had shops on the ground floor and rooms upstairs. It was not in good shape when Charming Inns owner Rick Widman leased it in the early 1980s. ... Widman opened the inn in 1983 after renovations that included adding fountains in the two courtyards."

      11. "Kings Courtyard Inn". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

        The review game the inn a one-star rating out of three stars. The review notes, "Just a 3-minute walk from City Market, this historic property started life in 1853 as an inn catering to plantation owners and merchants. Though it’s starting to show some wear and tear, the rooms remain charmingly old-fashioned, most with four-posters or canopied beds, fireplaces, and fine views of the two inner courtyards."

      12. Morekis, Jim (2015). Moon Charleston: Including Hilton Head & the Lowcountry. New York: Avalon Publishing. ISBN  978-1-63121-046-4. Retrieved 2022-05-23 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Still, its charming courtyard and awesome location on King Street are big bonuses, as is the convenient but cramped parking lot right next door (about $12 per day, a bargain for this part of town), with free in-and-out privileges."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kings Courtyard Inn to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 01:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Comment: No one, me included, has claimed that every building, or every contributing one, in this historic district is worth having a separate article. If one had, the arguments about notability not being inherited would apply. To counter others' assertions, I did/do assert this building is a contributing building. And among contributing buildings in the HD, i assert this one is notable and sources will exist, including because it is a hotel, and hotels get written about. And User:Cunard's analysis supports this (thanks!). We don't have to improve the article to satisfy everyone in order for Keep to be the outcome. It suffices for us to establish well enough that sources, online and offline, will exist. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.
That said, even if it is notable, we are not required to have a separate article on it if it can be covered in section or a table row in an appropriate list-article, say. Which would be something like Buildings in the Charleston Historic District, currently a redlink. Corresponding to how Buildings in the Savannah Historic District relates to the similar large HD Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia). I would be happy to start that list-article myself, but cannot do so immediately. If someone else would start it with the mentioned list of 40 or so, plus this one, that would be fine by me. And this AFD could be closed as Merge to that, leaving redirect with article history behind. Or, Merge could be decided or recommended, to be implemented when possible. Until that needed list-article is created, though, this separate article should be kept. In a merge decision, it is okay to leave work to be done before the merge can be accomplished. I would do that work within a few weeks, anyhow. I think/hope this should help. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Franklin County Courthouse (Illinois)

Franklin County Courthouse (Illinois) (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Seems to be a WP:MILL municipal building. No claim of notability in the article. Searching finds some routine local coverage. MB 23:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Public Work

Public Work (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Many of the refs are to the company website. Most of the others are minor mentions of the firm that primarily discuss projects they are associated with. No in-depth significant coverage of the firm itself. MB 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Davidkhanian Mansion

Davidkhanian Mansion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
David Khan (diplomat) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexander Khan Setkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meguertitch Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Markar Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eskandar Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martiros Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsatur Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Set Khan Astvatsatourian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This is a series of articles about the Davidkhanian family created by now blocked editor TheEdgarBox ( talk + · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). They are a mess. Most of the articles' text has little to do with the actual subject of the article itself. The images are all nominated for deletion because the tags were false.

The sourcing is highly questionable, at best. Nearly everything of substance in several of the articles appears to be derived from the Alice Navasargian book Immortals, which is self-published and not reliable. ( See page 9 for confirmation of self publishing).

If any of these subjects are notable, we would be best served by deleting these articles and starting over. agtx 18:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete all There is not enough sourcing to justify any of these. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep I just looked at one of the articles Alexander Khan Setkhanian, seems like it has adequate amount of sources to have its own article. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    @ ZaniGiovanni: But did you look at the references? Nearly all of the supporting references for sentences about the subject of the article (as opposed to general propositions about history) are from the self published Navasargian book. The citations to the Zia-Ebrahimi piece are likewise forged. The article is a short book review that does not support any of the statements it's cited for. agtx 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Keep Nominating all of these together was a mistake imo. Several of the subjects do appear to be notable, and the articles all contain multiple published sources besides the self-published book. The nominator has not made a convincing case that these other sources do not demonstrate notability in any of the articles. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    @ Ficaia: Can you help me understand which sources you're looking that support notability? Not all of the sources are readily available, but there is a serious forgery problem here (see explanation of Zia-Ebrahimi piece above). If there are particular ones you find convincing, I will try to track them down. agtx 21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I think the issue is that the book by Zia Ebhrahimi contains much information about the family, while the article in the historical review about the book is a mis-citation meant to cite the book itself. The citation should be changed to the book. 169.232.70.99 ( talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC) 169.232.70.99 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

John C. Wells Planetarium

John C. Wells Planetarium (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Sources do not seem to have changed much since last deletion discussion, so the previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom ( talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-07 (closed as merge to James Madison University)
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Francis Myers (CasaGrande)

Francis Myers (CasaGrande) (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Lack of notability, article based on primary sources (and even then lots seem unverifiable). Redirect to New Almaden#New Almaden Quicksilver Mining Museum is a possibility, even though the article title is a very unlikely search term (including the typo in the disambiguation). Fram ( talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Louisiana. Fram ( talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I think the article is worth keeping. It's more that about a house so he should have his own page. He is a biographical representation of someone who came to California either right before or during the gold rush (newspaper sources vary on the year) with little money and did well. Many from this time did not marry since there were far fewer women in California. He is well documented with many sources. Very few homes built in the 1850's survive in California. It's part of the story, but not all of it. Thehusband ( talk) 00:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I've added more sources. There is a lot of information about Mr Meyer's online. Occasionally some of the sources have him listed as Meyers, instead of Myers, but Myers is how his name is spelled on his tombstone, voter registration and personal letters currently stored at Louisiana State University. Thehusband ( talk) 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • TheHusband (or anyone else), can you point to the links which are actually reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage? I see unreliable sources like familusearch and findagrave, and things like this which don't really help either: but I don't see the sources which actually help to establish notability for Myers. Fram ( talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I think A Contested Election in California is the best source [48]
    He's on pages 54-56. He is the Election Inspector for this case that is being questioned. There are newspaper articles from his death as well as the 8 letters on file at Louisiana State University from the 1840's and 1850's. One letter is addressed to Francis Myers, City of Sacramento. No street address. Another one says "Francis Myers, San Jose, CA" on the envelope. Still no address. The towns were much smaller back then. I do not think there are many early letters from this era in California. All of these things make him interesting. I had included a lot of sources like the census and voter registration so I was clear that there was just one Francis Myers at this time. Thehusband ( talk) 05:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Anyone coming to California before 1850 was considered a California Pioneer [Category:California_pioneers]. This is not very common. This San Jose newspaper article mentions that he's a Pioneer [49]. The death of this Pioneer was even published in San Francisco [50] in addition to San Jose. The term Pioneer doesn't carry the same weight or meaning as it does today. In 1894 there was no road between San Franciso and San Jose, so I find it impressive for his obituary to be in both cities. What's even more remarkable is that California was still part of Mexico in 1846. Americans were not allowed into California legally at that point. You can read more about the [Society_of_California_Pioneers], which you need to prove that your ancestor came to California before 1850. There are other societies where their relatives arrived later, but this one is the most respected of all the groups.
    Here are three additional secondary sources I've found mentioning him in regards to Grande Casa
    [51]
    [52]
    [53]
    On each of these three links, you can click on the picture on the left to see the brochure/article/document. Thehusband ( talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment Redirect to New_Almaden#New_Almaden_Quicksilver_Mining_Museum: There is a chance this person might be notable per WP:GNG, but there is a ton of really bad sources here ( primary, unreliable, etc.). Familysearch, Find a Grave, and census records are not reliable, and the frequent use of newspaper citations with only a trivial mention of the name "Francis Myers" risks building a Frankenstein article out of multiple people with the same name, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or undue emphasis on trivialities (e.g. providing witness testimony is not what gets somebody into an encyclopedia, and mere verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion). Is it reliably established that the builder and judge are the same person? One obituary states: "The deceased was a carpenter by trade but he accumulated considerable means and retired and has for some time been rated as a capitalist"). We can't have an article based primarily on snippets, census records and primary sources, nor mere mentions of a name on signs, picture captions, or tombstones: that is the realm of historians and biographers to analyze and publish elsewhere: only then can the info be summarized into a tertiary encyclopedia. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I did consider whether there could be more than one Francis Myers in San Jose and Almaden, but these were small places at the time, and I have not found more than one Francis Myers in the local census and voter records, or anywhere else showing more than one. For some perspective, in 1870 there were only 9000 people in San Jose, while New Almaden was even smaller. He spent most of his time in California in New Almaden and only moved to San Jose at the very end of his life. In this book "A Contested Election in California" [54], Francis Myers mentions on page 54 that he built the Casa Grande, on page 55 he mentions that he owns some houses in New Almaden and rents them out, and then on page 56 he says that he was a member of the Elections Board in 1886 as well as the Inspector of the Election in question. The 1894 obituary mentions Francis Myers owned at least 4 different properties and other promissory notes [55]. So it looks like the builder and the judge are the same person. The next person to be interviewed in that book is G.E. Lighthall. What's interesting is that there is a photo of both Lighthall and Francis Myers at this Santa Clara County Park website [56]. The page says that they were both "prominent Almadenders". The disputed election in 1886 in Santa Clara was between two Senators(Felton and Sullivan). It was widely covered at the time. Thehusband ( talk) 05:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    But looking beyond the primary records, do you see significant coverage in reliable independent sources? His content in A Contested Election in California appears to consists only of his testimony, making it a primary source. Wikipedia articles cannot connect the dots or infer unpublished statements, no matter how likely or credible they may seem. This article on the whole is too close to WP:OR with too much interpretation: holding up scraps and building a narrative around them. I think a redirect to New_Almaden#New_Almaden_Quicksilver_Mining_Museum or deletion is in order, at least until a professional sorts through the sources and can characterize his contributions and biography. --Animalparty! ( talk) 07:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Here are some other secondary sources.
    [57]
    [58]
    [59]
    [60]
    [61] Thehusband ( talk) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Here's another source document called Three Pioneer Rapides Families, by Stafford. Francis Myer's is listed with a short biography on page 121. These links lead to the same document. One of the letters in the Louisiana collection is also mentioned on this page.
    https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/765772-three-pioneer-rapides-families-a-genealogy-by-george-mason-graham-stafford?offset=14
    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5802c4d9414fb5e45ce4dc44/t/5cd2d8ff1905f458727c9119/1557321989627/Jaudon-Robert+3.pdf Thehusband ( talk) 05:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I have removed all the familysearch, finda grave and census records references. Thehusband ( talk) 06:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Three Pioneer Rapides Families is the same source as this PDF. The biographical info on Myers on pg. 121 I don't see as significant coverage. The brief obituaries in the SF Call and San Jose Herald, are fairly trivial as well, and the similarities in wording and structure suggests they might be syndicated obits written by only one source and reprinted elsewhere. The Santa Clara County Parks sources are trivial mentions, primary sources, unreliable, and/or mainly about Casa Grande. We can't have a Wikipedia article based predominantly on names appearing briefly in brochures, letters, archival documents, databases, genealogies, or even newspapers. Nobody gets into an encyclopedia just because they are "mentioned buying nails" or verifiably got married and died. To satisfy WP:GNG and WP:42 we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm just not seeing that. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
The thing that's so interesting about Francis Myers buying nails is the book that it's in. It's not any book, but it's Sue Eakin's book that was the basis for the 9 time Academy Awards the movie had "12 Years a Slave". Sue Eakins is the person who rediscovered this 100+ year old book and researched it. I have not seen the movie but "Myers" is part of the book. What's also interesting is that the collection of Francis Myers letters also mentions other people that are mentioned in the book.
The link you included for the entire pdf on the Three Pioneer Rapides Families shows the party that Francis Myers came with to California. It says he went with his brother in law Thaddeus Robert, via the Isthmus of Panama and a few other people. It definitely confirms that they were California Pioneers since they get to California before 1850. Here's the page that talks about how they got to California. [62] Thehusband ( talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
KEEP: Since most of the documentation we have talks about his journey to California and life there, I think he should be listed in the category of [Category:California_pioneers] and his page should be changed from [Francis_Myers_(CasaGrande)] to [Francis_Myers(pioneer)]. There are several sources talking about his pioneer status. The letters at Louisiana State University archives and other books do not mention CasaGrande but rather his early arrival (consistent with a Pioneer) in California. It would not make sense to fold him into Casa Grande. Thehusband ( talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Francis Myers was the largest property owner with 16 homes that he owned in New Almaden. [1]. This source is on page 28, and was from Henning Jennings, and not Mr Myers. So it can't be considered a primary source. Thehusband ( talk) 15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

KEEP: I have made a lot of changes to this article over the past few weeks and addressed the concerns that were mentioned. I have removed the primary sources and replaced them with secondary sources. There were a significant number of sources for someone who died 125 years ago. I find his biography interesting and worthy of note. Thehusband ( talk) 18:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
No need to SHOUT, and please don't vote twice. And as far as I am concerned, no, Myers still isn't notable, the main source are court transcripts which are primary sources. I see no evidence of notability at all. Fram ( talk) 08:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment The Santa Clara County documents that I'm seeing (i.e. [MEYERS, Francis - b.1812 in South; to NA 11/54; built Casa Grande; at NA until 1877; last built Sta. Isabel shafthouse. __ this]) give his name as "Meyers". Searching on that name might yield better results. Also, I don't understand why this article has "(CasaGrande)" in the title - if it is to disambiguate the person, then it would be better to use something like "California Pioneer". I'll read through the links provided by Thehusband. I am leaning toward keep even though many sources are primary. It is hard to apply today's criteria to a historical figure. For example, there were very few news outlets in California at that time so even a few mentions should have heavy value. Lamona ( talk) 05:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus as to what should be done about this article. There is clearly not a consensus to delete. The support for keeping an article invokes a thread of sufficiency from a rather poorly articulated policy, but it can not be said to be clearly against policy. Nothing in this close forecloses an immediate proposed merger with a better developed supertopic article (a proposal also made but not further developed in this discussion). BD2412 T 05:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Vilnius

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Vilnius (  | 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 · NYT · WP Library)

Embassy buildings are required to meet WP:NBUILDING which this does not. All buildings "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" - this has none. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Bilateral relations, Lithuania, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete I could find no sourcing that would establish why the building the embassy is housed in is notable. All I turned up were links to the UK embassy itself. TH1980 ( talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete no inherent notability about embassies. Fails WP:NBUILDING. LibStar ( talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. Listed cultural heritage building on the Lithuanian Registry of Cultural Property ( [63]), so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. The entry has a link to a description. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 01:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Lithuania is a small country (65,300 km2, less than 3 million population) with approx 25,000 buildings with heritage listings. I do not believe a reasonable, sensible approach is that all those buildings are inherently notable. AusLondonder ( talk) 12:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    The guideline, however, says that they are! Basically, your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    I would also point out that a building like this would be heritage listed in most countries, however many buildings they listed. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Are you able to get any useful information out of the listing? I looked it over, but it is incredibly sparse on text so I didn't even bother trying to translate it. Articles still need to be verifiable. Something being notable is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an article. Rockphed ( talk) 05:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    In what possible way is this not verifiable? In any case, I have a suspicion you didn't click on the link that gives far more detail about the building ( [64]). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep, per Necrothesp. Listed buildings have been clearly been noted by a reliable third-party source. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Respublik ( talk) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Is this article about a building or the diplomatic mission? It seems to be the latter, so WP:GEOFEAT and WP:NBUILDING do not apply as this is not an article about a building. Lurking shadow ( talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Maybe move to Antakalnio Street 2 and rewrite as a building article? The building was made a cultural heritage building before the embassy moved in. But the embassy itself does not seem notable. Lurking shadow ( talk) 13:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
It's both. Although I have no objection to it being moved to the name of the building ( Antakalnio gatve 2). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete - as building article. Rewrite as building article, if warranted. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 00:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. Atchom ( talk) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Comment Closing admin should disregard plain votes of which there are now at least two, that say literally nothing more than "keep per Necrothesp". WP:PNSD states ""Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus" AusLondonder ( talk) 20:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    If my rationale has already been articulated by another editor, as is the case here, I don't consider it necessary to repeat them in extensio as opposed to adopting them by incorporation. Nothing in the guidelines forbids this. Atchom ( talk) 22:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    Well, yes, but you do not address the building/diplomatic mission problem that came up. Your comment can be safely disregarded because you do not appear to try to form a consensus. Lurking shadow ( talk) 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
    You should have been here long enough to know that "keep per X" is perfectly acceptable shorthand for "the other editor has said exactly what I think". It should most certainly not be disregarded by the closer and any attempt to do so would be in breach of the closer's responsibilities. Complaining about it is tantamount to suggesting you're angry that other editors don't agree with you and are trying to get their opinions disregarded for that reason. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that editors will go to get articles deleted once they've decided they don't like them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete This article is supported by 3 sources, 2 of which are not independent and the third does not have any data with which to verify the rest of the article. Some people have suggested that an article about the building itself is viable; I have no problem with people figuring out how to write that article. But this article adds essentially nothing as a base to start that article. Rockphed ( talk) 05:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Presumed to be notable" however we do not currently have independent, reliable sources to back up that presumption. Let's see if another seven days helps that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

@ Star Mississippi: Are you taking position here? Djflem ( talk) 18:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
Thanks @ Djflem. I'm not, I was simply relisting and noting a challenge with the existing !votes and what's said in the guideline. It is unclear whether "a" source is sufficient and more input on that front would help the closing admin. Star Mississippi 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
"Presumed to be notable" however we do not currently have independent, reliable sources to back up that presumption. Does nobody read links? We do indeed have an independent, reliable source as to the building's notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
We have two .uk sources which by their definition are not independent leaving us with this source which is connected with this one you linked above. This is why I relisted, because no don't have sourceS to back up that presumption. Star Mississippi 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
To quote once more: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Not, are presumed to be notable if multiple sources can be found. That would be changing an established guideline to make it fit your own beliefs as to what it should say. We clearly have "verifiable information beyond simple statistics". It therefore clearly meets the requirements of the notability guideline. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
As far as I understand, presumed to be notable is the same issue we have with the sports guidelines v. GNG. Presumed notable, means presuming coverage that hasn't been found to exist. At the top it says Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable so I don't think I'm adding anything that isn't there, albeit in a different section. It is unclear whether this building meets the GNG. But we agree to disagree as we have in other areas, and I'm happy to leave it there. Star Mississippi 17:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp, but probably merge to Lithuania–United Kingdom relations until there is more than a brief paragraph's worth of content on the building itself. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • delete having stayed in the grounds of this building and visited the Embassy itself I would say that there is nothing here that shows the building to be a separately notable place like other British Embassy buildings and the diplomatic content is as boilerplate as the start and end of a note verbal. Spartaz Humbug! 19:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. Notability established with references such as its inclusion on the Lithuanian Register of Cultural Property. -- Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 23:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Keep. WP:NBUILDING is not well-written, but my reading of the discussions that lead to it is that cultural heritage or national heritage is meant to be a sufficient condition for an artificial geographic feature to be notable. Some above have argued that they don't like that Lithuania has a large number of buildings on their cultural heritage list, but there's a community consensus (via the NGEO guideline) that these sorts of lists are valuable measures of notability. There's no inherent notability for embassies, of course, but this is moot given inclusion on the cultural heritage list. Since criterion 1 of WP:N explicitly allows for an WP:SNG to be met even when the WP:GNG is not met, and an article still be notable in that case, the arguments that this fails GNG also don't provide a compelling reason to delete. The editor who argued that their overnight stay at the building didn't give them the impression that the building was notable does not seem compelling whatsoever in light of the WP:PAG not caring at all about the vibe the building gives off when one personally visits it. For these reasons, my reading of guidelines is that this building merits an article and should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
  • Delete The register of Cultural property listing actually says nothing interesting about the building. The date of construction is given rather imprecisely - 18th-19th century, and that’s it. Nothing is said about the architectural style, or about any interesting features of the structure, or about the architect. If that’s all we have, it’s not worth keeping the article. Nwhyte ( talk) 09:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
I think the fact of its inclusion on the Register of Cultural Property alone is enough to establish its general notability. Additional detail about architectural style, etc., would be nice but is simply not necessary. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 10:59, 27 May 2022 (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.

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages


Arts proposed deletions

Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/visual arts Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/architecture

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