Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

WP:DSARTS

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Arts

Jean Cocteau bibliography

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

No need for a standalone article on this, can easily be incorporated into Jean Cocteau#Further reading if relevant. --wooden superman 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, and Bibliographies. --wooden superman 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello Woodensuperman. If you're proposing such a straightforward merge, just do it. See WP:MERGE and WP:PROPMERGE. Don't bring it to AfD. Cielquiparle (talk)

I'd prefer wider community input on this, as I have spotted that there are a number of these in Category:Books about film directors, so would like to see how appropriate we think these are as articles. Whilst Orson Welles bibliography seems a worthwhile article, I don't think we need Roberto Rossellini bibliography or Lars von Trier bibliography for example. --wooden superman 11:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(also note that if this is kept it should be renamed to Bibliography of works on Jean Cocteau per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Naming). --wooden superman 11:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists

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

I don’t know what to make of this. WP:NOTADATABASE. Hodgepodge of unsourced statistics. MOS:ACCESS violations that I don’t even know how to begin to address. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

Arts Templates for deletion

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

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Ellen Hadden

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

A quick search shows her notability does not rise appear to meet GNG Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can barely find any indication that she existed, and I find nothing that indicates she would be notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first three sources in the current version of the article are about her sister Mary Anne (or Anne) Hadden, a librarian, not about Ellen Hadden who is the subject of this article. Additionally, one of these sources an Arcadia Press "Images of America" book. Several discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in mixed opinions on the reliability of these picture books on local communities whose primary audience is likely either locals or tourists. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article so let me comment on this deletion action. There is indeed not much material about Ellen Hadden but there are not many portraits of women in WP:EN. Her work was presented during World' Fair and she was mentioned in Who's Who in American Art. She was a tapestry artist. As for the comments by Netherzone. The first 3 references are not employed to talk about Anne Hadden. Simply, the material about Ellen can be found in publications about Anne because they were sister, they had the same parents and came to States on the same ship (Inman Line in 1891). As for the Arcadia Press reference being of lesser quality because these are "picture books" for tourists. I know nothing about "mixed opinions" about these books. I searched now "google scholar" for "jeff norman" and he is referenced in other books on "Big Sur" as "local historian" with some reverence. Also, I agree that she is a local/regional artist but I do not agree that her WP entry should be deleted. Puncinus (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a short bio on AskArt. The AskArt bio is derived from the biography in Artists in California 1786-1940 https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx That gives a citation for birth and death. She is also listed in AKL Online (use wiki library) https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/database/AKL/entry/_00420827/html. The artist still doesn't seem to rise to notable. I will take another look for sources. I don't see how her sister's obituary can be proof of notability for Ellen. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly as she sounds like a very cool and creative woman. Unfortunately she is not notable by WP criteria and guidelines, but her sister Anne probably is. The current sourcing does not support notability, and an online BEFORE search does not reveal anything to support GNG nor NARTIST. The AskArt entry/Artists in California entry is not enough to convince me. For some reason I'm unable to view the AKL entry that WomenArtistUpdates found. Once I do read it if it influences my !vote, I'll add another comment. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Fix ping Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an embroiderer. Not notable as a decorator. AKL (De Gruyter) only lists

Further Names
   Hadden, Ellen
Gender
   female
Occupation
   designer; decorator; decorative artist
Geographical data
   Pacific Grove (California)
Country
   United States of America; Ireland
Place of birth
   Ireland
Date cited
   1939
Location
   AKLONLINE

I can't bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx	~		~ entire entry "Born in Ireland on April 2, 1877. By the 1930s Hadden had settled on the Monterey Peninsula. She studied locally with Ralph Johonnot. A spinster, she was a resident of Pacific Grove until her death at Palo Alto Hospital on Jan. 15, 1949. Exh: GGIE."	~ Partial
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-peninsula-times-tribune-mary-anne-ha/127887175/			obituary of sister Mary Anne. passing mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=9MVxp7W0IjUC&dq=Anne+Hadden&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=Anne%20Hadden&f=false	~	?	topic is Mary Anne. not one mention of Ellen.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV whether using the sources cited in the article or searching for results over the internet. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Benin (1967)

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

No reliable source confirms this flag's existence; James Minahan has absolutely no sources cited in any of his books for this flag (and others). The Flag Bulletin (#023) Vol.6 No.4 on page 134 says that "its flag, if any, is unknown". NorthTension (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Nigeria. C F A 💬 16:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Benin (1967). Djflem (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The claim is that the flag doesn't appear to have been real, so I don't see how a merger is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Colotlán

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

I am not sure how this article can pass basic WP:GNG, Symbols? The title seems wrong, I would suggest a part merge to Colotlán or either delete. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: I could not find any coverage by Mexican media and the only cited source is from the city government [1]. Similarly, the Spanish Wikipedia article also only cites primary sources and the Flags of the World entry. Per WP:PRIMARY, a standalone article cannot be predicated on primary sources, but they may be utilized for small sections. Therefore, Symbols of Colotlán should redirect and its corresponding information be merged to Colotlán. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago

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

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge into the main Otago article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not understanding what the problem is. Otago is a region of the South Islands, and the region has a flag, and Wikipedians have written an article about that flag. Wikipedia's flag collection includes many articles on regional territorial flags. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the flag doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability to have its own article, there are literally no sources that I could find TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it looks like most if not all the sources are print only :/ They do exist, though. And while I hesitate to use OTHERSTUFF as an argument, I'd agree that if other regional authorities' official flags are notable enough for articles, it seems like a double-standard to have this one face deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into the article for Otago. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Otago not enough notability nor enough content for a stand alone article for this. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is by far the most sensible option for this article. The flag exists, it relates to Otago and therefore should be included in that article.NealeWellington (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage. The page might do with some cleanup, true. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly confused how you could look at literally any of the sources and feel that they present the subject in any depth. There's nothing beyond "hey look at this" which is why the article is just the same. There's a good number of sources, but if you can't point to at least a few that have some depth then how can you be satisfied with it? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already stated that 3 times or maybe more and Trekker has already kindly replied. Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Various sources are independent and reliable and address the productions directly; the coverage can be considered significant either individually, or collectively, if your concern is the number of words or sentences of each of the sources. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Yeah, I'm aware of it, the sentence you quote actually says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis added). This is my entire point, there is no detailed analysis in any of the sources. A whole bunch of brief mentions that say nothing of substance doesn't meet the bar. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted you knew it. But that's what Trekker already told you, the threshold between in-depth and not in-depth can appear debatable. The dichotomy detail/vs/trivial mention, on the other hand, less so. And various sources are clearly not passing mentions but address the topic directly, yes. You might, personally, wish there were more details or might not like what the source says, or what you see, or the way the article says things, or maybe you find it of little interest, etc., but some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. I don't like it either, at all, if you want to know the truth, but, from my understanding of the guideline, it may be considered notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. Again, easy to say without actually pointing out which ones you are talking about. Without actually saying which ones, you aren't actually making a point. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The first source is "Geek Tyrant" which does not seem like the most reliable of sources and is only five sentences, so not significant coverage. The second source is similarly "ComingSoon.net" which is only four sentences long. The third source is "ComingSoon.net" again, this time with five sentences. I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources here that would suggest this might meet WP:GNG. I'd consider an article on the artist rather than this one of their art projects, but this seems far from WP:ARTIST standards like "significant new concept, theory, or technique," "substantial part of a significant exhibition," or "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not replying on the significant/not significant issue, but I would not be opposed to redirecting it to Travis Falligant (see https://nerdist.com/article/scooby-doo-horror-icons-art-michael-myers-jason-voorhees-freddy-krueger/ https://in.ign.com/scooby-doo/62024/news/artist-imagines-scooby-doo-meeting-freddy-jason-and-more (both about the Scooby-Doo work and not quoted in the article, if I am not mistaken) https://bloody-disgusting.com/images/3605367/artist-travis-falligants-adorable-horror-babies-ready-animated-series/ https://www.altpress.com/an_artist_transformed_disney_princesses_into_popular_horror_movie_character/ that could help establish his new concept is the cute x horror crossover) but in the meantime, this is perhaps his best known and (I think) most extensive work and we can't redirect it to a non-existing page. Again, if other users think renaming and reshaping the page is better, I am not opposed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked these suggested sources, and am regretting that I spent any time doing so. I am switching my previous comment to "strong delete," as I am further convinced this is nowhere near WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is puzzling to me as well. The last AFD ended in a keep result because there was no actual discussion of the quality of the sources. That's fair, when nominating something for deletion the quality of the sources is almost always a key element and the onus is on the nominator to make that point.

Unlike the previous nominator, I did take the time to look at them, and there's nothing there beyond "look at this" which obviously does not constitute significant coverage, whether the sources are reliable or not.

The suggested new sources are just more of the same. Fan sites need to keep grinding out content to attract readers, and that is all that this coverage is, a couple sentences, then a bunch of examples of the works. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdist is not a fan site, IGN is not a fan site, Altpress is not a fan site, Bloody Disgusting is not a fan site. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very frustrating, as the keep comments say they see depth in the coverage, yet have not actually said, at all, which of the many sources contains any depth. I took the time to actually look at the sources and I didn't see it. I've cited examples of how shalow the coverage is. They are saying they see depth of coverage but won't say where they see it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trekker. Specific genre have their own literature and accepted sources, and its best to realize that there are many things which the major media, for whatever reason, will not cover (tell me about it!). The editors who know the genre consider these as notable artworks the subject, Scooby Doo, combined with aspects of a recognized storytelling model. Not that it counts here, but since the page gets a respectable 25 or so views a day, in those thousands of views a year some of the incorrect information will have been shook loose by fans of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

Peter Seidel

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

Came across this article while looking at orphans. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPERSON. Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and Google came up and the best were interviews and a single book review in a journal here}. The page was created a long time ago by the author himself. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Barrie, Ontario

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

After a quick Google search, believe this list does not meet WP:NLIST criterion of "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", therefore nominating for deletion. Ueutyi (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not collect buildings that are notable in themselves, the city is not known for having tall buildings, and there is a lot of precedence for deleting this 2000s-early-2010s-type of Wikipedia content. Geschichte (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the buildings listed are generic suburban condos, none are historically notable. Nate • (chatter) 18:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short article with no notably significant buildings listed.User:R.schneider101 02:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. CptViraj (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't make articles on projects that are merely "envisioned". Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to me this is a valid yet excessively detailed list that fails WP:NOTDB on its face but is also a valid list, so I'm not really sure what to suggest here. It definitely needs an edit, but it doesn't need to be deleted entirely. A quick translated search shows over 1,000 articles in Dutch related to both Friesland and windmills, so it's definitely not a random topic. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Arts

Jean Cocteau bibliography

List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists

Arts Templates for deletion

Arts Proposed deletions

Visual arts

Ellen Hadden

Flag of the Republic of Benin (1967)

Symbols of Colotlán

Flag of Otago

Lost Mysteries

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Architecture

Peter Seidel

List of tallest buildings in Barrie, Ontario

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

Architecture Proposed deletions

Categories

Requested moves

See also

Transcluded pages

Other pages