Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

Points of interest related to Arts on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage for this book. This isn't worth a merge to the curator's page because it is unreferenced and doesn't fit well into his her biography. I'm not sure if such a title is worth a redirect to the curator. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and England. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least. Jane (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per WP:BK and WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her". SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them. Jane (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my definition. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." Please read what I linked to. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I picked List of works in the Museum of Modern Art at random from the many museum lists on Wikipedia. Works at the Museum of Modern Art have been discussed in the context of the group with works such as "A Landmark Acquisition for MoMA's Architecture and Design Department". In this case, only the curator or individual works have been discussed in reliable sources. There has been no such coverage about the book or list "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting I just noticed this 1994 edition example here. I only noticed because the cover illustration is different. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dillian Gordon. "doesn't fit well" makes little sense to me. He made the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if it's a book she wrote that's always a valid redirect unless it's so vague as to be useless. It is not vague, so I don't see why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep per Cunard. Also who turned my name into a red link lol? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit did. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significant coverage is simply missing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the two listed "References" is another Wikipedia article, the other is the subject of the article. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. Elspea756 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the book doesn't meet our criteria for notability. d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso is a better place for this information. Ham II (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If a list like List of works in the Museum of Modern Art would be created for the National Gallery then this book could serve as ONE OF the references. The book itself does not meet requirements for an article. I would advise Jane to make a copy of this article, which is destined for deletion, with the idea of using this content as the basis for a list of key works at the National Gallery. The problem is using the book as the article focus rather than the artworks themselves. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that any top museum willing to risk snide comments in the art world by distilling their huge list of items on show to a number approaching something browsable on a mobile phone (100 is still a bit long) deserve our support. It was only in the 1980s that paperback guidebooks became more available, and generally were only made by top-ticket museums. Goodness knows there is less and less funding available to produce such guidebooks, and it may be a dying genre, but I do think it would be worthwhile to set up some guidelines for covering museum guidebooks and exhibition catalogues on Wikipedia, if only to avoid comparing them to generic non-fiction. Jane (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: There are already two other list articles for works in the National Gallery: Collection of the National Gallery, London and Catalogue of paintings in the National Gallery, London. There is no need for more than one in an encyclopaedia; probably the first should be deleted and the second should have illustrations added to it. That second page should perhaps also be renamed to List of works in the National Gallery, as it includes the single significant work in the collection which isn't a painting, Leonardo's Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found no reviews. It has minor presence in libraries as per WorldCat. The book is cited in G-Scholar less than one dozen times. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Lubbock, Tom (2001-08-24). "Don't take this book as the last word on art. It can be only an introduction". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "On the other hand, as the book is intended for beginners, some guidelines seem useful. For example, to fill it up with the most famous pictures would be pointless. People are going to bump into ... anyway, in the windows of poster shops. A little adventurousness, even eccentricity, is wise. It's good, for example, that Georges de la Tour is represented not by his famous, dreamy, candle-lit visions, but by one of his sharp-edged card-cheating scenes. What's more, the choices should inspire further exploration. What's depressing about having Caravaggio represented by his early, static Lute Player is not only that it's far from his best, but that this choice conceals from the novice the terrific excitement of Caravaggio's art. It does not truly introduce. Overall, this selection is as good as any. But, actually, for a really engaging introduction, you don't want a book of the 100 greatest paintings."

  2. Cole, R. (March 1984). "100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso (Book Review)". Museums Journal. Vol. 83. pp. 244–245. EBSCOhost 513730664. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Google Books.

     The review notes: "The publication of this volume by the National Gallery marks a new venture in that it is sponsored by Messrs Coutts & Co , bankers to the Gallery since 1864. Let us hope that this volume will be succeeded by others and that the example given by this kind of sponsorship is followed elsewhere. One hundred paintings from the National Gallery (approximately five percent of the total collection) have been selected by Dillian Gordon as examples of the richness and range of this famous collection. The paintings are reproduced at full-page size and in an excellent full-colour rendering. The Gallery's most famous paintings are here: Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin and Št Anne, Bellini's Doge and Botticelli's Venus and Mars, Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne and the Rembrandt Self-Portrait, van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage and Vermeer's Woman at a Virginal, Velasquez' Rokeby Venus and Goya's Dona Isabel de Porcel. Coming closer to home, we find Constable's Hay Wain, Turner's Fighting Temeraire and the great French paintings such as Renoir's Les Parapluies, Seurat's Bathers at Asnieres and Van Gogh's famous Sunflowers. There are also less well-known works: Pisanello's darkly gleaming Vision of St Eustach, a Canaletto, which takes us a few yards away from the vistas of the Grand Canal to a Stonemason's Yard, a plump and motherly Madame de Pompadour by Drouais, The Grote Kerk, Haarlem with its glowing white interior by Saenredam, a nice Steen of ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thanks for finding this. However, it seems to be a fairly short review since the page range given is just one page. Is that what you see? (I don't have access to it.) Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the first reference is about this book? It seems strange for a 2001 article to review a 1981 publication. SL93 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Caravaggio's Lute Player is not in this book, and Georges de la Tour isn't featured at all. SL93 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:

2. Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

   The review notes: "Duccio to Picasso: 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery, London (4.95 until December 31, then £5.95). The enviable task of browsing through the NG's 2,000 treasures to produce a book of a mere hundred fell to assistant keeper Dillian Gordon. Of course, she's ridiculously wrong about some things. Her choice of four Titians against only one each of Cezanne and Renoir is probably explained by her three-year study period in Italy, dangerous for anyone at any impressionable age. ... But one shouldn't grumble. To let the book fall open at, say, Tiepolo's Venus And Time, ... or Corregio's School of Love is to let the spirit breathe deep. At the price (Coutts Bank have helped keep it down), the book is a treasure in itself." The caption notes: "... Her comments on each picture in 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery are unfailingly helpful."

Cunard (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thank you. I haven't been able to use Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library for a while now now because of the current errors per this. Are you using a paid subscription? Not being able to access it, especially for creating articles, has been upsetting. SL93 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, I've updated the https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ link to a clipping. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this article is kept, and is about the book rather than the list itself, it should probably be renamed to match the book title. From the links above, either Duccio to Picasso or 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The cover of the 1981 edition and MOS:TITLEPUNCT suggest that the article title would be The National Gallery, London: 100 Great Paintings – Duccio to Picasso, but the cover of the 1994 edition suggests it's 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. I don't know if the title pages had something different from the covers; if they did that could explain the titles in the 1981 reviews of the book. Ham II (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as I think a 1981 book was probably covered in offline sourcing that we haven't yet found. At worst, merge to Dillian Gordon where it makes sense to cover the book with the sourcing that has been identified. I'm a little confused about the redirect not being of value but may have misunderstood what was meant. Star Mississippi 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I've struck my previous "delete" comment above. The Independent and Museums Journal sources found by Cunard look promising and suggest there are others that are difficult to find based on being from the early 1980s. I may have found another, but it is behind a pay wall. The article needs to be rewritten to be about the book, including its reception, rather than just duplicating the contents of the book. Elspea756 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - really as that very rare animal on WP: a fully sourced list that someone might actually want to look at. A rename might be in order, but I can't see we should delete that given the vast number of unsourced lists of all sorts on WP. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge I think it is not notable enough to merit its own page, however I noticed the Collection highlights section of National Gallery article is just what appears to be an arbitrary list of works. Would be be better to use Dillian Gordon's list instead? I believe it is notable enough for that. Myotus (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.

  We shouldn't give undue prominence to one souvenir guide from 1981, as if that's the only publication that's ever given a condensed list of highlights of the collection. If we really wanted to base National Gallery § Collection highlights on some sort of statistical analysis, there would be lots of books in a similar vein to Dillian Gordon's to take into account, none of them suitable topics for encyclopaedia articles. As I've said, Wikidata is the place to gather that sort of data, and that has already been done for this book at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso. Because the Commons gallery c:National Gallery, London is also a compilation of highlights, there might be a case for adding all the (out of copyright) works in Gordon's selection to that, and noting in the captions when a painting is in her top 100. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have any Cassatts that I can see - rather late, & not many oils. They would be in the Tate. They have two VlBs, one of top quality but a secondary version (oddly, these are not mentioned in our much longer Collection of the National Gallery, London list). Non-European (indeed Byzantine) art is outside the NG's scope. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I just added Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun's Self Portrait in a Straw Hat to the "Collection highlights" section in the Nation Gallery article, doubling the number of women of in the listed 58 artists in the section. Myotus (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources found by Cunard seem enough to show this is notable and could be kept. I will note that this article format, nature and content are quite idiosyncratic (list+official works selection+book) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a good rescue of source discovery. The volume covers important paintings of one of the most important art collections in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boku no Pico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV and there is a lack of independent sources regarding its controversy, which would seem weird being a shotacon anime sillygirly97 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Anime and manga. sillygirly97 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unfortunately I was able to find sourcing to meet GNG:

• Clements, Jonathan (2015). The anime encyclopedia : a century of Japanese animation. Internet Archive. Berkeley, California : Stone Bridge Press. p. 558. ISBN 978-1-61172-018-1.
• Sources 1 and 2 on the JP article of the subject. I'm not copying/linking them here as the content within those sources violates US law.

Jumpytoo Talk 05:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found this short paragraph on Comicbook.com calling it "amounted to little more than child pornography" and a news report about the release of a remaster. These are small coverage, but they show the series is recognized, even for bad reason. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 02:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 10:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a few clicks allow to check there is a lot of coverage about this, indeed, and in various languages, including English.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Horrible but sources presented above show notability, PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is an ANN news about it given on the article, article is on a bad shape but WP:NOTCLEANUP Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoryPhillips(DJ)

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

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

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

Another non-notable "Mother of Pearl" artist, part of a walled garden of articles on the Munshi/Munsi family. Likely a UPE or COI creation. A BEFORE search returns nothing on this person, and I was unable to verify any of the claims nor the awards. Relies on one author's unverifiable writings on the Munsi/Munshi family that is used in all of these articles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Visual arts, India, and West Bengal Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are only two sources listed in references, and they appear to credit the same author, so there are not multiple sources here. They are also apparently offline sources that I am unable to find any record of, so I am not sure that they are independent or reliable or even exist. I have been unable to find any sources. Elspea756 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage for this book. This isn't worth a merge to the curator's page because it is unreferenced and doesn't fit well into his her biography. I'm not sure if such a title is worth a redirect to the curator. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and England. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least. Jane (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per WP:BK and WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her". SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them. Jane (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my definition. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." Please read what I linked to. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I picked List of works in the Museum of Modern Art at random from the many museum lists on Wikipedia. Works at the Museum of Modern Art have been discussed in the context of the group with works such as "A Landmark Acquisition for MoMA's Architecture and Design Department". In this case, only the curator or individual works have been discussed in reliable sources. There has been no such coverage about the book or list "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting I just noticed this 1994 edition example here. I only noticed because the cover illustration is different. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dillian Gordon. "doesn't fit well" makes little sense to me. He made the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if it's a book she wrote that's always a valid redirect unless it's so vague as to be useless. It is not vague, so I don't see why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep per Cunard. Also who turned my name into a red link lol? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit did. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significant coverage is simply missing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the two listed "References" is another Wikipedia article, the other is the subject of the article. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. Elspea756 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the book doesn't meet our criteria for notability. d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso is a better place for this information. Ham II (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If a list like List of works in the Museum of Modern Art would be created for the National Gallery then this book could serve as ONE OF the references. The book itself does not meet requirements for an article. I would advise Jane to make a copy of this article, which is destined for deletion, with the idea of using this content as the basis for a list of key works at the National Gallery. The problem is using the book as the article focus rather than the artworks themselves. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that any top museum willing to risk snide comments in the art world by distilling their huge list of items on show to a number approaching something browsable on a mobile phone (100 is still a bit long) deserve our support. It was only in the 1980s that paperback guidebooks became more available, and generally were only made by top-ticket museums. Goodness knows there is less and less funding available to produce such guidebooks, and it may be a dying genre, but I do think it would be worthwhile to set up some guidelines for covering museum guidebooks and exhibition catalogues on Wikipedia, if only to avoid comparing them to generic non-fiction. Jane (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: There are already two other list articles for works in the National Gallery: Collection of the National Gallery, London and Catalogue of paintings in the National Gallery, London. There is no need for more than one in an encyclopaedia; probably the first should be deleted and the second should have illustrations added to it. That second page should perhaps also be renamed to List of works in the National Gallery, as it includes the single significant work in the collection which isn't a painting, Leonardo's Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found no reviews. It has minor presence in libraries as per WorldCat. The book is cited in G-Scholar less than one dozen times. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Lubbock, Tom (2001-08-24). "Don't take this book as the last word on art. It can be only an introduction". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "On the other hand, as the book is intended for beginners, some guidelines seem useful. For example, to fill it up with the most famous pictures would be pointless. People are going to bump into ... anyway, in the windows of poster shops. A little adventurousness, even eccentricity, is wise. It's good, for example, that Georges de la Tour is represented not by his famous, dreamy, candle-lit visions, but by one of his sharp-edged card-cheating scenes. What's more, the choices should inspire further exploration. What's depressing about having Caravaggio represented by his early, static Lute Player is not only that it's far from his best, but that this choice conceals from the novice the terrific excitement of Caravaggio's art. It does not truly introduce. Overall, this selection is as good as any. But, actually, for a really engaging introduction, you don't want a book of the 100 greatest paintings."

  2. Cole, R. (March 1984). "100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso (Book Review)". Museums Journal. Vol. 83. pp. 244–245. EBSCOhost 513730664. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Google Books.

     The review notes: "The publication of this volume by the National Gallery marks a new venture in that it is sponsored by Messrs Coutts & Co , bankers to the Gallery since 1864. Let us hope that this volume will be succeeded by others and that the example given by this kind of sponsorship is followed elsewhere. One hundred paintings from the National Gallery (approximately five percent of the total collection) have been selected by Dillian Gordon as examples of the richness and range of this famous collection. The paintings are reproduced at full-page size and in an excellent full-colour rendering. The Gallery's most famous paintings are here: Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin and Št Anne, Bellini's Doge and Botticelli's Venus and Mars, Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne and the Rembrandt Self-Portrait, van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage and Vermeer's Woman at a Virginal, Velasquez' Rokeby Venus and Goya's Dona Isabel de Porcel. Coming closer to home, we find Constable's Hay Wain, Turner's Fighting Temeraire and the great French paintings such as Renoir's Les Parapluies, Seurat's Bathers at Asnieres and Van Gogh's famous Sunflowers. There are also less well-known works: Pisanello's darkly gleaming Vision of St Eustach, a Canaletto, which takes us a few yards away from the vistas of the Grand Canal to a Stonemason's Yard, a plump and motherly Madame de Pompadour by Drouais, The Grote Kerk, Haarlem with its glowing white interior by Saenredam, a nice Steen of ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thanks for finding this. However, it seems to be a fairly short review since the page range given is just one page. Is that what you see? (I don't have access to it.) Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the first reference is about this book? It seems strange for a 2001 article to review a 1981 publication. SL93 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Caravaggio's Lute Player is not in this book, and Georges de la Tour isn't featured at all. SL93 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:

2. Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

   The review notes: "Duccio to Picasso: 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery, London (4.95 until December 31, then £5.95). The enviable task of browsing through the NG's 2,000 treasures to produce a book of a mere hundred fell to assistant keeper Dillian Gordon. Of course, she's ridiculously wrong about some things. Her choice of four Titians against only one each of Cezanne and Renoir is probably explained by her three-year study period in Italy, dangerous for anyone at any impressionable age. ... But one shouldn't grumble. To let the book fall open at, say, Tiepolo's Venus And Time, ... or Corregio's School of Love is to let the spirit breathe deep. At the price (Coutts Bank have helped keep it down), the book is a treasure in itself." The caption notes: "... Her comments on each picture in 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery are unfailingly helpful."

Cunard (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thank you. I haven't been able to use Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library for a while now now because of the current errors per this. Are you using a paid subscription? Not being able to access it, especially for creating articles, has been upsetting. SL93 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, I've updated the https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ link to a clipping. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this article is kept, and is about the book rather than the list itself, it should probably be renamed to match the book title. From the links above, either Duccio to Picasso or 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The cover of the 1981 edition and MOS:TITLEPUNCT suggest that the article title would be The National Gallery, London: 100 Great Paintings – Duccio to Picasso, but the cover of the 1994 edition suggests it's 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. I don't know if the title pages had something different from the covers; if they did that could explain the titles in the 1981 reviews of the book. Ham II (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as I think a 1981 book was probably covered in offline sourcing that we haven't yet found. At worst, merge to Dillian Gordon where it makes sense to cover the book with the sourcing that has been identified. I'm a little confused about the redirect not being of value but may have misunderstood what was meant. Star Mississippi 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I've struck my previous "delete" comment above. The Independent and Museums Journal sources found by Cunard look promising and suggest there are others that are difficult to find based on being from the early 1980s. I may have found another, but it is behind a pay wall. The article needs to be rewritten to be about the book, including its reception, rather than just duplicating the contents of the book. Elspea756 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - really as that very rare animal on WP: a fully sourced list that someone might actually want to look at. A rename might be in order, but I can't see we should delete that given the vast number of unsourced lists of all sorts on WP. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge I think it is not notable enough to merit its own page, however I noticed the Collection highlights section of National Gallery article is just what appears to be an arbitrary list of works. Would be be better to use Dillian Gordon's list instead? I believe it is notable enough for that. Myotus (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.

  We shouldn't give undue prominence to one souvenir guide from 1981, as if that's the only publication that's ever given a condensed list of highlights of the collection. If we really wanted to base National Gallery § Collection highlights on some sort of statistical analysis, there would be lots of books in a similar vein to Dillian Gordon's to take into account, none of them suitable topics for encyclopaedia articles. As I've said, Wikidata is the place to gather that sort of data, and that has already been done for this book at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso. Because the Commons gallery c:National Gallery, London is also a compilation of highlights, there might be a case for adding all the (out of copyright) works in Gordon's selection to that, and noting in the captions when a painting is in her top 100. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have any Cassatts that I can see - rather late, & not many oils. They would be in the Tate. They have two VlBs, one of top quality but a secondary version (oddly, these are not mentioned in our much longer Collection of the National Gallery, London list). Non-European (indeed Byzantine) art is outside the NG's scope. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I just added Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun's Self Portrait in a Straw Hat to the "Collection highlights" section in the Nation Gallery article, doubling the number of women of in the listed 58 artists in the section. Myotus (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources found by Cunard seem enough to show this is notable and could be kept. I will note that this article format, nature and content are quite idiosyncratic (list+official works selection+book) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a good rescue of source discovery. The volume covers important paintings of one of the most important art collections in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Lord Howe Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreliably sourced and non-notable, some guy made an unofficial flag, the majority of mentions online appear to be citogenesis. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's arguably a hoax, and it's non-notable either way. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single reliable source for this. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems to be just a flag someone made up one day. Any mentions I found just drew from the Wikipedia page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, an unofficial and fictitious object. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not totally sure about this. At first I also thought this might be a hoax, and any the sources I am finding were maybe based on the wikipedia article, but the page history[1] shows that the article is based on an earlier article by the "Flag Society of Australia." And here are some photos of the flag flying in Australia[2], though maybe that's just flown by somebody who fell for a hoax? Elspea756 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge with Lord Howe Island, unless we can establish that it truly is a hoax. Can anyone who has been to Lord Howe Island tell whether people there use this flag? I wouldn't use Flag Color Codes or the fact that there are such flags for sale on Amazon as RS in the article, but they do suggest that the flag is in use somewhere. My second choice after merge would be to delete. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This subject is important enough based on the efforts and events that led to the flag creation. It's use wasn't born out of war but was born out of a friendly sporting competition between two neighbouring islands. What an interesting and notable story in the overall history of this region. I imagine that similar histories of flags creation have been lost for much larger places than this pacific island. I don't think an unofficial flag can be considered a hoax without evidence.

Flag history order of events:-

-someone has created a new flag design

-the design was made into a flag

-someone has travelled with the flag to a neighbouring island for a sports competition

-flag was raised up the flagpole for the duration of the sports competition Rockycape (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this doesn't appear to be a hoax, the coverage is so scarce that it fails WP:GNG. The article is sourced to a single website and a quick search did not find any other usable sources. Astaire (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This article should not be deleted but rather merged into the article about the Island itself. 1.127.111.182 (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources do not support this as a standalone encyclopedic topic. Whether it should be mentioned in Lord Howe Island is an editorial decision for those with knowledge about that area; the Lord Howe Island article is pretty well-developed and the editors has not yet found the flag worthy of mention. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets GNG and has numerous sustained sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that the sources are not sustained, as it's impossible to update the article since 2011 or so due to a lack of sources. 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Delete, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."

  Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[3] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of credible sources sillygirly97 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170202032914/https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/required-reading-40-of-the-best-webcomics.html			Six sentences in a listicle of 40 items	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222023014/https://www.wired.com/2009/08/10-great-webcomics-you-should-not-share-with-your-kids-geekdad-wayback-machine/			Five sentences in a listicle of 10 items	✘ No
https://sinfest.net/news.php (redirects to a site on Wikipedia's blacklist)	The subject's website	Self-published source		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170707021326/https://www.themarysue.com/40-webcomics-you-need-to-read/2/			Three sentences in a listicle of 40 items	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20090615151041/https://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6663678.html?nid=2789&source=link&rid=1907919383	Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject			✘ No
Webcomics. Bloomsbury Comics Studies.	? Offline source I do not have access to.	Nominator says "in his blog [the source] made clear he did not do any research for this."	? Offline source I do not have access to.	✘ No
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html	Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180310090252/http://www.patreon.com/sinfest	The subject's blog post	Self-published source		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141027235626/http://www.ccawards.com/2004.htm			Artist name and title of work simply listed three times in a list of 115+ other items	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110611141712/http://www.bt.no/bergenpuls/litteratur/Debuterer-i-Tommy-og-Tigeren-2285615.html			Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic	✘ 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}}.

Elspea756 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Many of these sources are usable. I had a similar discussion years ago with a table like this (which was also faulty) and it only led to issues. Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's book coverage from 2013 [4] and 2020 [5]. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.

  The 2020 book is sourced entirely from Reddit posts, which are themselves unusable. 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then write an article solely about Sinfest's panel usage and formatting, because that's all there's sources for. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?

  Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's notable, then why is there no outside reception of it that we can use to keep it updated? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is, in the books?

  By your logic, it is against the rules to make an article on any comic until it is over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One book. The 2020 book is just a collation of Reddit threads that do not count as sources. If only one book, and a fairly technical one at that, mentions something... it's probably not notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?

  Publishers Weekly + Wired + Paste clear our threshold for reliability and SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite???? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have no rebuttal to WP:NTEMP. Also you canvassed this discussion in your own favor which is very against our policy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fight the argument, not the one making it. And you have no rebuttal to WP:Sustained 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Keep it seeing that we already have one wikipedia page for Stonetoss. Why not keep Sinfest as a page?96.241.99.133 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.

  Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.

  If A then B, not B. Therefore not A. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Read WP:NTEMP. Once something is notable it is notable for good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Read WP:Sustained If something was 'notable' for a very short period of time and isn't afterwards, it probably was never notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage in this article is for over a decade!

  If this is what WP:SUSTAINED means, 99% of articles on a fictional work fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  'Clean up' is not possible. Because it wasn't actually notable in the first place. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per source assessment. Felicia (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. I would be wary of the source assessment based on what is stated on the template page: "The use of this template does not imply a final or consensus view of how any given source should be assessed. Though it may be used to summarize a developing consensus, it may also reflect the assessments of a single editor in the course of a discussion." It seems to do the latter rather than the former. Just thought I'd make that one point here. Historyday01 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit. Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.) Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per source assessment 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on the sources presented by Oaktree b? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficient. Could you start an article with just those? I don't think so. 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk)

They are both SIGCOV. And yes you could? Good enough for GNG, in combination with the earlier stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".

In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to do a mass AfD and propose they all be deleted, press your luck, but this clears the standards we have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It cleared the standards we *had* in 2000. It does not clear the standards for 2020.

I think a reassessment, and deletion, is in order.

2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clears the standards we currently have now, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift. Ssteedman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a deletion rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be counted as Lack of WP:Sustained. Which is reason to delete. Sinfest is not notable, and has not been for ten years. 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read WP:NTEMP

Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.

It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.

Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.

Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.

You said it in your own words.

and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,

Sinfest lacks continued coverage.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered for over a decade!! PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covered for over a decade, sure, but the article in no way reflects what Sinfest is now.

Anyone reading Sinfest the Wiki article and Sinfest the webcomic would think they had landed up at another site with a similar name.

If Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it lacks it in describing this.

Ssteedman (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: There is significant onwiki canvassing going on. Special:Contributions/2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 has violated WP:CANVASS by notifying the following editors, whom 2601...403 expects to !vote delete: Kontakr, Daveosaurus, DontKnowWhyIBother, BurningLibrary, PrincessPandaWiki, Jellyfish. Please take this into account when closing this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that there's also a push from a Reddit post encouraging people to brigade for a "delete" vote. https://www.reddit.com/r/sinfest/comments/1ecf5ki/sinfest_article_up_for_deletion_on_wikipedia/ Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please add @Historyday01: to the list of users that were possibly inappropriately notified (WP:CANVASS) of this AFD. Diff. Timestamps indicate that Historyday01 received the user talk notification first and then !voted in this AFD second. I have blocked 2601:447:C801:3AD0/64 for a week for canvassing after being previously warned about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's a good idea. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. After a recent bad experience with an AfD, I am generally cautious to participate these days, but I saw this discussion as an exception. And I actually would have even voted delete myself, but its my personal view to vote "keep" (even weak keep) or "redirect" whenever possible. So, if that user was trying to get me to vote delete... that did NOT work. Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't care enough about the article to !vote either way. However notability is not temporary, and Sinfest is far from the only comic that became extremist late in its run.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How long does the coverage have to be for you to consider it sustained? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.

  If official people care about the comic, they will write official things when the comic makes major changes. Like people did with Cerebrus. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is contrary to WP:NTEMP, so no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is, however, WP:Sustained

  Wikipedia has a lot of 'contradictory' rules that are intended to be balanced against each other. WP:NTEMP must be balanced against WP:Sustained and this falls on the side of not being notable.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have One. Book.

  That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.

  2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am reading further about Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P

  That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't use Kleefeld's post to say anything about Ishida's descent into conspiracy theories and antisemitism, but it should be fine to use it to say that the comic has changed and no longer connects to its once large fanbase. —Kusma (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hornpipe2: Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author. WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Traumnovelle you're one of the proponents on the Sinfest talkpage of, well, not updating it with any new information because you don't feel that the sources meet Wikipedia standards. The standards that you're holding new sources too is, in fact, so tight that I honestly don't believe that the older sources hold up to those standards.

  It cannot be updated, and it should not have existed in the first place... which is honestly reasonable, it's just a minor webcomic, no real direct links from other Wikipedia articles to it. Documenting it would be like documenting every single fast food chain in the USA that ever showed up in a local newspaper... not something that Wikipedia is intended for.

  What I want to ask is: Why do the early articles on irrelevant sources get a pass in your mind, but the 2024 kleefield blog post and the newsletter article don't? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this was a major webcomic 10 years ago that is now obscure, but did have some nontrivial coverage outside of the innermost webcomics bubble. Sure, it is not Dilbert, but it was, as RationalWiki says, "one of the most popular webcomics on the Internet". Notability is not temporary, and there is nontrivial coverage of Sinfest back when it was a popular webcomic on Google Scholar. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "This was a major webcomic 10 years ago". Original research, also all webcomics were more in the limelight back then, there was a fad for them. 'Rationalwiki says' not a good source. Google Scholar. Not a good source. Bloomsburry studies: Mentions sinfest as an example, but that alone is not enough to make Sinfest notable. Regardless of if you like or dislike the comic, wikipedia is not the place for non-notible articles that cannot be improved. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That it was a major webcomic 10 years ago is evident from its use as an example in various publications, not just from the non-RS Rationalwiki. There do not seem to be any sources for the last ten years, but that may be for the best. We can just say "As of 2014" to clarify we have no newer information. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we do have subject matter expert Sean Kleefeld who can be cited to say that the comic has changed, possibly alienating its old audience. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a previous attempt to include that information. It was removed because, according to the person who removed it, it wasn't a usable source. The fact of the matter is that the article cannot be updated and cannot be improved. So far no sources have been sufficiently legitimate to overcome the inertia of the folks who don't want to improve nor modernize the page. The page should be taken down. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete 'Rational wiki' is not a valid source. We don't need a separate page for every comic that ever made it onto a top ten list somewhere. This is not a notable subject Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I want to clarify my position a bit: The matters spoken of in this article are unverifiable. The sources are bad. Worse the article is riddled with original research, such as claiming that the 2008 shift in the comic was due to 'uncertainty and stress about the financial meltdown' which is NOT a quote from the purported source of that edit. This is a poor article that's not verifiable and made almost entirely from original research. I do not recommend retaining this article.Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved. This article cannot be improved. There are no reasonable sources for current events, and the sources for prior events are not sufficient. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and full disclosure, I'm here because I saw the post in reddit. And yes, this article has needed to go for a long while. The deletion section says that articles that are 'unimprovable' should be deleted, and the past few years of people editing new information into the article only to have it removed due to a lack of verifiability is proof that it's unimprovable. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved.

  That isn't what WP:DEL-REASON states. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a side note, I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that there's a direct link to sinfest on the wiki page. There should not be a direct link to openly antisemitic works on a wikipedia page, and sinfest is openly antisemitic. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTCENSORED. What's the point in removing the link when I can type sinfest into google and it comes up as the first result any how? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, for one thing, having the link improves Sinfest's standing in online search engine results. I know Sinfest comes up as the top result on a search for "sinfest," but I'm not thrilled with the idea of putting it higher in the results for terms also mentioned on its Wikipedia article, like "webcomic." I also don't like the idea that any random person perusing Wikipedia could find themselves on a site that promotes hate speech with no warning. Finally, just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean a link is required. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The link doesn't improve their standing in search results because we use nofollow. There is almost never a reason to avoid linking to a website in an article on that website. We link to Stormfront; we can link to this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, I retract that portion of my comment, then. Thank you for the correction. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've already commented a lot on this AFD so I won't dwell here, but I do think that, even though this isn't a vote, I should make it clear that I favor deletion. Until reliable sources exist that can cover what Sinfest is now, the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy. I would argue this falls under reason #7 to delete an article that's listed at WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." While some reliable sources documented what Sinfest was circa 2008, no such sources exist for what it is now, and the coverage even then was sparse at best. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The criteria in del-reason refers to things that cannot be verified to actually exist or contain no reliable sources at all. The article contains multiple reliable sources and someone posted two quality sources that can be used in this AfD. We don't need to be able to verify every detail/constant coverage or else we would have to delete Valerius Flaccus (poet) because it's impossible to verify anything about his life beyond his death. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're going to reply to me, you could at least respond to the crux of what I'm saying. I will reiterate what I said above: "the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy." I'm not talking about "every detail" or "constant coverage"; I don't demand that the article cover how Slick is no longer a main character. I'm talking about the fact that it's now an antisemitic hate site, which is an enormous change that this article completely ignores. Wikipedia should not lie to its readers. As it stands now, that's exactly what it's doing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a fair number of what I would call bad rationales here, both to keep ("because we have an article about stone toss") and to delete ("it started to suck really bad between now and the last RS coverage"). For the record, and to put more specificity on what "suck really bad" means, I just went to the website and read through the last couple months of strips. While the art style is certainly better than it was some decade ago when I last heard of this comic, but I cannot help but notice, well: the current series is called "Into The Rabbi Hole" and the latest strip features two roosters representing Christianity and Islam being forced to fight for entertainment by a crowd of jeering Jews. If you go look at a random strip from the last year, it is just more of the same variety of rancid dog shit. The guy seems to have gone completely off the beam in this regard. Well, okay: this is dumb and bad, but I don't think it is an issue that makes sense to resolve by deleting the article. jp×g🗯️ 12:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't the 'sucking' so much as the fact that we can't get any coverage of the shift into open antisemitism. Right now we've got an article about an anti-semitic website that doesn't explain what it is, and includes a direct link without any warnings to the antisemitic website.

  Admittedly Traumnovelle isn't exactly helping. You can see from the article's talk page that this user will only accept the strictest rationelle for 'support'... so strict, in fact, that under Traumnovelle's standards the current article should not have been made. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically what I'm trying to say is: The article is not accurate. The article cannot be made accurate. Deletion is better than having an inaccurate article that is impossible to fix. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I may end up needing to revise my vote here.

  I am trying to look this up and I'm going nuts.

  Has nobody said a word about this in any usable source whatsoever?

  Like, there's nothing at all. No news sites, no magazines, no industry blogs, no blogs of any kind: it's literally just discussion threads on forums and reddit and TVTropes and the Bad Webcomics wiki. I can't think of the last time I saw something like this. What? I feel like it is basically every other day you see a bold accusation that this or that public figure has some kind of secret right-wing sympathies -- social media posters and tabloid sites love connecting the dots on some infinitesimal freeze-frame detail in a video or an obscure flag in the background of a political rally. But somehow, nobody gives a hoot if one of the most widely-read webcomics of the 2000s pivots into [sinfest.xyz/view.php?date=2024-05-26 strips about how Hitler was based]?

  Wild!

  For what it's worth, even the hater websites do not seem to give a crap about this -- the RationalWiki article does not see fit to even mention it until after a rambling diatribe about him wanting porno to be illegal and thinking the COVID vaccine is a conspiracy and being a second-wave feminist instead of a third-wave feminist (all of which are given more attention and mentioned before the Nazi stuff). I guess maybe I am completely alone in thinking that "saying Adolf Hitler was the good guy" is a notably or unusually bad thing to do, and in reality, it's about on the same level of badness as "using the term 'cuck'".

  Like, am I losing my marbles? Isn't being a Nazi a pretty big deal? jp×g🗯️ 14:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is normally a pretty big deal. You know. If the subject is actually notable. This is the exact point I've been trying to make. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I very much appreciate this comment, @JPxG:, as it affirms that this atypical deletion discussion has a real basis to it. It feels like an absurd situation and at least this gets that across. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've already voted but: Right from the deletion article "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is where we're sitting right now. You can see many attempts to find more sources in the talk page, and furthermore I've repeatedly turned to the Sinfest Reddit to attempt to find more sources, asking redditers to scrape together any sources they can find.

Further This article heavily fails WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is simply not an accurate representation of the subject. According to WP:COMPOUTCOMES 'flash animations are typically deleted unless extremely well known'. Generalising that to webcomics... I feel that sinfest is simply not extremely well known, and that deletion is the correct step. If it was well known, it would have more sources than a handful of bylines in weak media. The 'book' everyone cites doesn't seem to even directly speak about sinfest, it just uses sinfest as an example of a type of webcomic style... alongside other webcomics also used as an example of that style. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 32 comments at this AfD so far; I think if you can't manage to get the point across in 31 comments, the 32nd is unlikely to be helpful. jp×g🗯️ 14:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'd say there is marginal support for keeping this page, per the existing sources, and the discussion here. I think others are more qualified to speak on that than me. Surely there are some unreliable sources, I won't dispute. I also feel that some IP addresses (like 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403|2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 which has more than 25 comments) are spamming their comments here to make their point in favor of deletion, which the closer should keep in mind. I think it is better to keep the page for the time being and work on it to improve it rather than deleting it outright. I can't think of anything this page would be redirected to, so at this point the only logical thing to do is to support a "weak keep."--Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I'm sorry I'm neuro-divergent and have a tendency to over share and talk to much. That being said, I do want to communicate, and I think it does help 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are also continuing to canvass users (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyday01&oldid=1237166343) despite being IP blocked already - which is strictly against the rules. Knock it off. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's not really cool. It's not improving their case either. Historyday01 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand the links you're referencing. Encyclopaedic says 'Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.' which goes against what you wish for, unverifiable information to be included. The article complies with encyclopaedic because it represents a summary of what the reliable sources state.

WP:OUTCOMES just provides an overview of how AfDs usually turn out: it is not a policy nor a guideline and will not be considered by the closer. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED are clearly met by the two books mentioned above, as well as this brief 2009 review in Library Journal and this substantial 2012 review in The Comics Journal. It's not ideal that there's no more recent coverage of the comic, but that's not a reason to delete the article entirely; if the 2024 Kleefeld blog post mentioned above can't be used as a source, maybe it could instead be added as an external link. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per source assessment. The assessment isn't claiming the Wired, Publishers Weekly or Paste are unreliable. It shows these were passing mentions or press releases. The comic came and went and now seems to exist solely as a topic on user-generated sites. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, the central deal of it here seems to be that there is a big dispute over what to do about the fashening (for lack of a better word). The conflict here is that the article ends up being utterly ridiculous if we do not mention the fashening, but the sources we have are pretty patchy, and we cannot just claim in the voice of the encyclopedia that people have certain views, even when they obviously are. This is, of course, a good policy to have, but it does present us with a strange challenge here.

Well, after much rancor I think I have gotten something workable out of one of the sources previously ripped out because it was being used and quoted from poorly: the 2024 Kleefeld post (a subject-matter expert who we cite as such all over the product) that I think genuinely threads the needle of WP:BLP concerns to avoid saying anything defamatory about Ishida, while clearly indicating that a) the strip's political leanings have undergone another jarring shift and b) it is now a giant pile of dog shit.

I think we are allowed to note briefly, in an article about a webcomic, that a scholar of webcomics felt it necessary to note that the comic's quality declined precipitously. I have tried to phrase this in a way that does not make any statements as claims to objective fact, and presents them entirely as quotations from Kleefeld.

By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral" that seemed "at odds with reality".^[1]

References

How's about this. jp×g🗯️ 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair. Historyday01 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely support that if we keep the article, but still support deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elli. Still probably better overall to delete, but if the article stays, this should too. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would work. —Kusma (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great - exactly what I was hoping we could get out of all this. I considered whether we might also be able to get Ishida's own statements in there to corroborate the new political direction; unfortunately, his "news" page is rather bare of actual statements. Maybe someone could dig deeper for that sort of thing. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG per source review; we don't need an article if it is out of date and can't cover it's material accurately. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Traumnovelle removed fully accurate categories on the sinfest page. Categories are not subject to the same verification requirements as written information, these should be restored at earliest convience 2601:447:C801:3AD0:DCAA:787F:36B1:C75F (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, content-related discussion should be left to the talkpage of the article, rather than in this deletion discussion. I appreciate the work done tho, of course! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons discussed elsewhere - "Article needs catching up to cover shifts in the subject's themes" isn't a great reason to delete, though it certainly does need some overhaul. Sinfest was a big deal in the early days of webcomics (one of the banner offerings for Keenspot, before Ishida left that site in 2006, and a breakout success by webcomic standards in general up through the early 2010s), and feels worth documenting for that historical value alone. It got a writeup in The Comics Journal as late as 2012, talking about the strip's artistic merits and the way its storytelling was developing in new and more complex directions. (Garrity, Shaenon (2012-04-23). "The Sisterhood of the Pimp Ninja Sluts". The Comics Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-30.) It's quite late here and I don't have time or energy to figure out how to best fit it into the article, or to revisit the recent (May) Haus of Decline/Bitter Karella podcast episode covering Sinfest's later developments (and how that fits with BLP), but there might be something there that can help bring the article up to date in a factual and reasonably neutral way. Mockingbus (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm extremely surprised to find this Garrity article I hadn't seen before. It is very good and certainly establishes more classic WP:N. Thank you for finding that! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: IMO Publishers Weekly articles and two book passages make it notable. The Publishers Weekly article, while it may be "based on an interview" as the table says, is not simply a straightforward transcript of an interview -- we can't just discount media coverage because it includes direct quotations like this.--MattMauler (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JPxG's proposed inclusion seems fine to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems to adequately pass GNG per the comments above. — Czello ^(music) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more feedback to the proposal from JPxG, which seems to be gaining some traction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is insufficient. My vote remains on delete. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: notability is not temporary and JPxG's proposal shows that the current issues are summountable. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia sourcing from this AfD :) A user edited the page to add this info, which was reverted quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinfest&diff=prev&oldid=1238006919 - note that the change is 'using some of the comic's strips themselves' as a reference to talk about what the comic has become. Why isn't this allowed? Perhaps because it's considered "original research" by Wikipedia, reading the comic and applying our own interpretation, rather than citing some expert doing it? Or is there some other policy? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're correct on why it's forbidden. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the relisting admin that I've updated my original comment to "strong delete." The proposal that the relisting seeks to solicit more feedback on is to use a single unreliable self-published blog to give negative opinions about a living person and contentious political topics. This is counter to many of our policies, including WP:BLPSPS. Elspea756 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You've got to be kidding me -- this is one of the silliest comments I've read all month. A widely published scholar on the topic of webcomics said on his own website that the comic -- not the guy, the webcomic that the article is about -- had gone on a "downward spiral". Like, to be clear -- this is a farcical understatement. The comic is now, on a daily basis, the author going on extended rants about how he hates Jews and transgenders et cetera. To limit our description of this to "downward spiral" is already an extremely mild milquetoast phrasing resulting from massive concessions to BLP.
  
  Your reasoning here is obscene: we can't write anything at all suggesting that the comic is bad, because it's so bad that mentioning how bad it is constitutes defamation, because it makes the guy who wrote it look like a bad person. Well, this makes no sense, there is no policy that says this, and nowhere else on Wikipedia do we make content decisions on this basis.
  
  

  Do you genuinely think that WP:BLP says we're forbidden by policy to include any negative assessment of a creative work? Have you, or anyone else, successfully applied this reasoning to any other content in any other article? I claim the answer is "no", and this is a 100% diametrically-incorrect interpretation of what this policy says and how it works. jp×g🗯️ 05:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will counter the "widely published scholar" part; this author got a single book published and that's it. However, it's a very basic bit of reception of a creative work that indeed should not fall under BLP concerns. It doesn't even try to say what the politics are. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Maplestrip, for clearly debunking the "widely published scholar" claim. I'll note that WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources." The proposed addition is to quote a self-published blog claiming that the artist is on a "downward spiral" and "at odds with reality."[6] The blogger's claim of a "downward spiral" is "everything you need to know about Ishida [the artist] and the downward spiral of Sinfest" is "The long, rambling, and hateful journey from ... nerd [to] addict [to] theorist [to] TERF [to] extremist." The "at odds with reality" claim is that "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality." These are all from an unreliable self-published blog making contentious claims about a living person. This has no place in a wikipedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are not in the article. I don't know how to explain to you that text not being in an article is not in an article, and I don't understand why you are just repeating the same thing over and over. Your claims are not true. jp×g🗯️ 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Amending a comment from elsewhere: Kleefeld may not be a widely-published scholar, but that doesn't mean he isn't a valid source. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal, and I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  lol I guess your plan is to target the one consensus we had, get it knocked out, and then you can get back to pushing to delete the comic you don't like? Hornpipe2 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per non-notable with no WP:SIGCOV. And quite frankly, when I search for "Sean Kleefeld", I'm not seeing any reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV that would even qualify this guy for being a "scholar" by our guidelines, or to even have a biography. And a WP search for "Sean Kleefeld" only shows six results. And as one book review put it, his lack of research makes most of what is offered appear anecdotal and subjective. In my view, which is supported by an absence of reliable sources about this guy, his viewpoint is non-notable and insignificant. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sean Kleefeld is not the author of Sinfest, whether he is notable or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether his books represent significant coverage of Sinfest. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you have posted this comment on the wrong page -- Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources who's being cited for a single sentence. jp×g🗯️ 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing around a dozen sources being cited for this single sentence: By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral". It appears to me a Wikipedia editor has analyzed and interpreted a primary source themselves, then decided that a single sentence is an adequate summary of a 1700+ word article, and then to boot, cherry-picked five words to emphasize (the "quoted passages"), because they think those five words are noteworthy out of a 1700+ word article. Sorry, but I prefer that third-party independent sources analyze and interpret primary sources, and then Wikipedia reports what they think is noteworthy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This appears to be an objection to the general project of "summarizing and presenting the information found in reliable secondary sources", i.e., to the entire project of writing an encyclopedia. If you feel that Kleefeld's article is being misrepresented or missummarized in the article, that's a content question that is subject to discussion and consensus on the talk-page; it has nada to do with notability or deletion. (I am the same person as IP 100.36.106.199.) 71.25.15.114 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This sentence implies a comma; sorry, let me type it out explicitly, so that there is no possible way to misinterpret it:

• Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources.
• Sean Kleefeld is being cited for a single sentence.

• jp×g🗯️ 21:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to make it clear your comment is about Sean Kleefield not whether the Sinfest article should be deleted? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further haha.

  Regardless of the status of edits adding Kleefeld's article as a source for new information, we come back to the same issue, which IMO is all around WP:NTEMP. Arguments that "the comic doesn't matter NOW" or "the comic hasn't mattered in 10 YEARS" does nothing to dissuade me, or I think most "keep" voters, from pointing out that the comic was notable THEN and should be kept for that reason alone. In fact, through this process, more sources have turned up discussing the comic during its heyday, which further reinforces notability during that time.

  But even so, some argue that even IF it was notable for a time, there seems to be some argument for a "notability quotient", where continued publication requires continued notability, i.e. WP:SUSTAINED on a very long time scale - is the barrier for notability higher, because the author didn't quit while he was ahead?

  The only thing that would persuade me, and (dare I speak for) most "keep" voters, is compelling arguments that the comic was never notable, or that even granted that, past notability isn't a high enough bar in this case. Aside from the (imo very flawed) source assessment table above, the closest thing to overlap I've seen between the two angles is "nobody is writing about its downfall now, so maybe it was never important to begin with." I think it would be beneficial to stick to a discussion of how WP:NTEMP works (or doesn't) with a long-running, lately-ignored media property instead, and hash out the Kleefeld article inclusion in the talk page.

  Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; I have no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD. I have absolutely no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD when it's simultaneously happening on the talk page, and the same people are crossposting the same comments to both pages. It's unbelievably pointless and I frankly think anyone who brings this stuff up again should just have their comments clerked to the talk page and replaced here with a link. jp×g🗯️ 00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further

  Agreed, this AfD has been open for 17 days and at this point there is a clear consensus to keep the article, so someone should close this trainwreck. WP:RELIST says a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. I don't see any reason to wait, people seem to be getting frustrated with one another, evidenced by the screaming and hollering going on. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kleefeld may not be a notable scholar (and I'd argue that he isn't one at this time), but he isn't the one up for AFD here. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal. I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: has been the subject of sustained and substantial critical attention. Just restricting to the online sources, the 2012 Comics Journal review and the recent Kleefeld blogpost are in-depth, independent coverage, and the Paste, Wired, and LJ reviews are well beyond passing mentions. None of the delete votes offers a compelling counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: the removal of the improvements to the article stands as further proof that sinfest is not, and has never been, notable outside of a minor fad for webcomics in the 2005-2015 era. We don’t need an article for every individual pog and we don’t need an article for every individual webcomic. After this comic page is deleted, I think that dresden codak should be next Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prentiss M. Brown Honors Center & Astronomical Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable building at a small liberal arts college. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, United States of America, and Michigan. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Albion College: I don't see why this can't be a small paragraph under the article about the college. The historical plaque implies notability, but there's just not enough sourcing about this for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose merging because all of the sourcing about the building is primary, and it would therefore be undue to add this material. If someone had straight up added this to the Albion College article instead of creating this article, I would have removed it with that rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also disagree that historical plaques imply notability. They're easier to get than you'd think and often used for promotion. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Oaktree b. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be a part of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden. The church seems to fall under WP:BRANCH and a stand-alone article is not warranted under WP:BRANCH. I've boldly re-directed but it has been objected by the creator. WP:OTHERSTUFF argument has been made, which is not a valid reason. What I do see is that quite a few others that may also warrant being re-directed somewhere. I suggest REDIRECT or selective merge. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Organizations, Religion, and California. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article was accepted by @SafariScribe:. The subject is notable based on the secondary sources provided in the article. Below are two examples that meet WP:ORG and WP:SIRS. I feel the article was well written and similiar to other articles listed here: All Saints Episcopal Church.
• Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California: Valley Publishers. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9780913548738. Retrieved 2024-07-08.
• Hardy, Maggie (March 30, 1995). "When City Hall Was A Church". Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. pp. 17, 24. Retrieved 2022-06-10.

Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing AfC only means that the review felt there's a 50/50 chance or surviving AfD, nothing beyond that. Carmel Pine Cone articles aren't unusable, but they mean very little as far as notability on a world scale encyclopedia. I do question the validity of existence of many of the local church branch articles as well. This one caught my attention, because of the pattern of Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden matter I have been acutely aware of. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Churches do not have inherent notability. This one, while it may be known in its local community of Carmel, it is non-notable. It is not on the NRHP. The sources above are a hyper-local weekly Carmel newspaper, and a locally-published historical trivia book about Carmel. I would not consider this independent reliable sourcing at all. Of course locals are proud of their local church, that stands to reason, however that does not confer notability. This entry fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS, WP:NCHURCH as well as WP:GNG. It also seems to be part of the Carmel/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey walled-garden of articles. Netherzone (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with your assessment. A secondary source by definition is a source "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The two cited sources in my Keep vote count for secondary sources, thus WP:SIRS. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Carmel Pine Cone is ultra hyper-local and it's not even close to meeting WP:AUD and the level of coverage in that article is not what most would consider "significant coverage". This is a local unit of larger organization and a stand-alone separate article on a local church is generally not warranted. It's only outside that generally if the local church in specific meets WP:NORG as explained in WP:NCHURCH. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What you are saying dosn't make any sense. A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. Why would you want to erase an article that is (a) well written article, (b) demonstrates with pictures, infobox, links, and map a church in Carmel, (c) been approved by a peer during the AfC review, (d) has nine references to reliable sources, (e) part of the All Saints Episcopal Church, and (f) contains real history and designed by architect Robert R. Jones? It makes no logical sense at all. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. No, it's not. And the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and false assertions is not helpful nor indicative that you've taken any feedback on board about why you're blocked from mainspace. AfC review has no merit on AfD, and nine sources is meaningless when they're not independent and reliable. Star Mississippi 19:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per WP:GNG a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 12 references to reliable sources. It has been reviewed, accepted, and published by SafariScribe per Articles for creation submission WP:AFCH. The fact that Netherzone and Graywalls continue WP:TAGTEAM my articles is questionable. Let assume good faith and understand that this article was written to provide coverage of a Episcopal Church that is historically important. The church was established in 1907, 116 years ago in a town that was just estabalishng itself. The church was designed by architect Robert R. Jones who went on the desgin the Monterey Regional Airport. The All Saints Episcopal Church page lists many U.S. All Saints Episcopal Churches. Should they be nominated too? Greg Henderson (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:TAGTEAM is an essay, which means it hasn't been approved by the community, so it carries virtually no weight. And in any case, in a deletion discussion such as this, the only thing that is going to be looked at is notability and sourcing, not behavior. If you have a problem with the behavior of certain users, take them to WP:ANI with your accusations. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg, I have looked at the All Saints Episcopal Church. Look at how disproportionately California centered that list is and many of them are terribly sourced, advertorial and some not even article worthy. I've tagged and re-directed some and pruned some. The presence of pre-existing substandard article should not be an excuse to add further substandard article. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least half of the buildings listed are NRHP-listed. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm not seeing any claim for the notability of the parish, and age certainly doesn't count for that. The building likewise has the kind of coverage expected in local press. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability can be found in the following secondary sources per WP:N guidelines:

  • Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9780913548738. Retrieved 2024-07-08.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Hardy, Maggie (March 30, 1995). "When City Hall Was A Church". Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. pp. 17, 24. Retrieved 2022-06-10.
  • Grimes, Teresa; Heumann, Leslie. "Historic Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea" (PDF). Leslie Heumann and Associates1994. Retrieved 2022-06-10.

  Greg Henderson (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Greghenderson2006, please stop spamming the same exact sources multiple times. You already presented two of those three sources in your !vote above. We know you are personally invested in saving this article as its creator, but you need to let others have a fair chance of participating in this discussion and providing input. Left guide (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no evidence of ORG level coverage, especially of the independent variety. An edit request to add a book published by the church shows the ongoing issues here. Star Mississippi 01:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:GNG of the notability guidelines, an article "is suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This criteria is covered by the reliable sources in the article. WP:ORG is a seperate guideline used for organization. All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) has already been accepted and reviewed by SafariScribe. I do not see any reason to therefore try to delete this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ORG criteria constitutes the the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies; ORG/NORG applies to this article. Further: No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is The fact that Robert R. Jones designed it (who also designed a local airport) is of no consequence; An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. The church cannot inherit notability of the architect or the airport. Additionally, These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. The third source presented, "Grimes, Teresa; Heumann, Leslie. "Historic Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea" (PDF). Leslie Heumann and Associates" does not count towards notability as it is not independent, it is a report paid for by the City of Carmel-by-the_Sea - work for hire. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note there is a direct link between All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) and architect Robert R. Jones. This link contributes to MOS:BUILD and demonstrates coverage between All Saints Episcopal Church and the architect. The sources in these two articles contribute to WP:GNG. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, Google Scholar brings up the following two books on the All Saints Episcopal Church of Carmel:

  • Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea by Teresa Grimes who has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation and Leslie Heumann and revised by Glory Anne Laffey
  • Carmel A History in Architecture by Kent Seavey, who is a historic-preservation consultant and a teacher of art and architectural history at Monterey Peninsula College

  These two secondary sources should count toward notability as the authors are notable for the work they have done and for their experience in historic preservation. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but those don't count towards notability: the first one is a primary source government document, and the second one is a book from Arcadia which you have failed to convince the community as a reliable publisher despite many chances to do so during discussions at talk pages and at RSN. Aside from that, the church is only mentioned in the Arcadia book via a photo and short caption on p. 53, which falls woefully short of WP:SIGCOV. Left guide (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already contents about the church at Robert_R._Jones#All_Saints_Episcopal_Church, so D E L E T E & Re-direct seeems like a plausible alternative. There's just no way this article warrants a stand-alone article. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg, as explained several times already these sources do not count towards notability:

  • Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea by Teresa Grimes who has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation and Leslie Heumann and revised by Glory Anne Laffey because it was written as work-for-hire. The authors were paid by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to write it. It does not matter if they have 100 years of experience between the three of them, it is a commissioned report, it is not independent, it is not secondary, and it is not reliable. And, BTW, it is not a book.

  And this source, as explained already,

  • Carmel A History in Architecture was published by Arcadia Press, which has questionable notability and reliability. Basically their books are written for the tourist trade, Arcadia Books are not serious history and certainly not serious architectural history. They are low-quality coffee table picture book clutter, and as @Left guide mentions it's not SIGCOV either.
  • The Hale book is more of the same, published by Valley Publishers locally, not a reliable source, more coffee table clutter. None of the sources meet ORG or GNG criteria, and no amount of insisting they do can change this. I agree that Carmel City Hall may not be a great target for a redirect, as its notability is also questionable.

  Netherzone (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Greghenderson2006:, also reliably conveying facts don't justify inclusion. One could say a certain Ford vehicle comes with Goodyear tires, which uses carbon black. https://news.goodyear.com/goodyear-collaborates-with-monolith-on-carbon-black-initial-testing-demonstrates-reduced-emissions You could dig and dig and dig about sources about where it comes from, who the company is owned by and so on. One can go-on and on and on with various sources and be factually reliable, but completely undue for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Your articles are always extremely heavy with names of companies, places, and people and seemingly, shoehorning names seem to be the primary purpose. Things like who names of construction contractor, architects, names of property owner, name of current and former owners. That sort of thing. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And when those names are non-notable, they become part of the walled garden as new articles. Which is precisely why so many of Greg's articles are heavily sourced to the hyper-local weekly free "newspaper" with a small circulation, The Carmel Pinecone. The Pine Cone ain't the New York Times by a loooooong shot. Netherzone (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If consensus decides to delete the All Saints Episcopal Church article, please redirect to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeRedirect to Carmel City Hall. I'm surprised no one has suggested this one yet. Per WP:NCHURCH, "[i]ndividual religious organizations ... must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable. However, it is possible that both the building and the institution are notable independently from each other – in which case, a combined article about the institution and the building is an option." In this case, I don't see standalone notability for the new building or its congregation; the subject of most of the independent reliable sources in this article (Sharron Lee, the Pine Cone, is the older church building now home to Carmel City Hall. Sources referencing the new building are WP:TRADES (Architect and Engineer) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. But a merge can salvage any encyclopedic content on the church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I will add that under WP:NCHURCH, those restricting notability standards to WP:NORG are incorrect. The church can pass WP:GNG, but I don't think it does separate from the building that already has a page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dclemens1971:, can you clarify what it is you're asserting is incorrect? Are you saying you believe the guideline to be incorrect? Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Graywalls I’m saying that arguing for a requirement to meet NORG for this church is incorrect. WP:CHURCH allows religious congregations/buildings to pass either GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the target article is of questionable notability and a possible candidate for AfD as well. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then it can be dealt with at that point. I see a stronger case to be made for the notability of Carmel City Hall as a page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I find Netherzone's thorough analysis of the sources to be most closely aligned with WP:RS guidelines. The coverage available for this church runs the gamut of various types of GNG fails: primary sources, passing mentions, indiscriminate sources, self-published sources, COI sources, paid sources, and routine announcements. Left guide (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a part of a continual drive to get every last pebble in Carmel-by-the-Sea into Wikipedia. Netherzone has nailed the source analysis. The nom has nailed the nomination. I find I can add nothing more. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's a current topic at ANI, but in effect I wouldn't trust a source GregHenderson proffered to verify that the sky was blue. With the analysis by neutral editors without long histories of conflict of interest behind them, deletion is the only rational option. Ravenswing 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Town Hall 1873 Centre for the Performing Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a smalltown performing arts theatre, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for theatres. As always, theatres are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to the theatre's own self-published content about itself on its own primary source website, which is not support for notability, and cites absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  bearcat is going through articles I have made and deleting all of them after they passed approvals, he is on an abuse of power. Jp3333 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This article was never submitted to the WP:AFC process, you created it straightaway. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "reviewed and approved by Mailee66" Jp3333 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability issues and significance issues.

Other than the subject being an owner of some architecture firm. Appears non-notable. Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Women, Architecture, Maharashtra, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find coverage of her in two books covering architects in India, and I have added these sources to the article. The sources already present in the article indicate broad coverage of her work. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't see any sort of notability. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Gandara, Samar#Tourism where it's already mentioned with nearly as much information as is in this article. The name of the cemetery is missing, but that's an easy merger. LadyofShalott 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: name of the cemetery is there in a caption. This can just be a redirect as a reasonable search term. LadyofShalott 12:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Previously at AFD twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)} so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

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

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

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

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