Edge Rewrite
translate Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Visual 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|Visual 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 Visual arts. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

For Visual arts listings only:

  • A simple tag to put on AfD discussions as an alternative to the coding given above under "tag an AFD" is:
{{subst:LVD}}
It displays exactly the same message, but is easier to remember.

See also:

Visual arts

[edit]

Princess Sofia of Romania

[edit]


Princess Sofia of Romania (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)

Recreated at a new article title despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sophie of Romania. DrKay (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Romania. DrKay (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Keep. The fact that an earlier version was deleted in 2022 does not, by itself, establish that the present article should be deleted. WP:NTEMP expressly recognises that an article may be recreated when new evidence supporting its existence as a standalone article has emerged. The principal concern in the 2022 discussion was that the available coverage concerned Sofia mainly as a daughter of King Michael and that her photographic work had received little independent attention. The situation has materially changed since that discussion. Her work and exhibitions have subsequently received coverage from several independent national media organisations, including: TVR’s 2022 report on her personal photographic exhibition concerning Maramureș; AGERPRES’s 2024 coverage, also Romanian Insider and also Nine O'Clock of the London exhibition based on Of Stone and Steel; TVR’s separate 2024 report on that exhibition and its treatment of Romania’s abandoned historic buildings; TVR’s 2025 coverage of her exhibition in Edinburgh; Radio România Cultural’s coverage of her earlier Elements of Nature exhibition at the National Theatre in Bucharest. TVR is the Romanian National Television programme. These sources discuss Sofia’s own photographic projects and exhibitions rather than merely mentioning her as a member of the former royal family. They also demonstrate coverage extending across a number of years, rather than attention resulting from one isolated event. The present article therefore differs materially from the version considered in 2022. It documents her sustained work as a photographer and author, her exhibitions in Romania and abroad, and her humanitarian and public activities. Some routine biographical details are naturally supported by official or primary sources, but those sources are not the sole basis of the article’s claim to notability. Any excessive reliance on affiliated sources can be addressed through editing and the addition of the independent sources above; it is not a reason to delete the entire article.
    Her humanitarian activity also forms a substantial part of her public career. Following her first visit to Romania in January 1990, Sofia served as vice-president of the organisation now known as the Margareta of Romania Royal Foundation. She participated in identifying projects, fundraising in the United States and organising humanitarian aid. Her involvement with the foundation has continued, and she currently serves on its board. This further demonstrates that the subject has a documented public career independent of her parentage, although I do not rely on this activity alone to establish notability.
    The article should therefore be kept and improved rather than deleted merely because an older and less developed version was deleted four years ago. Memez01923 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - the sources identified above, while praising, do in fact meet the bar for being secondary independent SIGCOV. Jishara (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
TVR 2022 is 4 unbylined sentences announcing an upcoming exhibit, with a very brief description of the photography subjects. The AGERPRES piece is straight from a press release (it's noted in the article). TVR 2024 has a few sentences saying that an exhibition occurred, with everything else being in quotes. TVR 2025 is another announcement about general celebrations of Queen Maria in Scotland that mentions that Sofia's photo exhibit will be part of it, it has no coverage of Sofia. Radio Romania Cultural is clearly a press release announcing an upcoming exhibition...unlike content in the "Produced by Radio Romania" section, it does not have an author byline. JoelleJay (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Notable for what exactly?Anonimu (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep I see where the npm is coming from, but pretender royals usually have sigcov and she is no exception. Also, the Romanian article has further sources that could be of use for expansion.← Metallurgist (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Notability is individual. Just because many actors are notable, it doesn't mean all actors are notable. Please indicate what constitutes this articles notability beside being the daughter of her father. I did check the Romanian article and all sources not already used here are blogs that couldn't be used on English Wikipedia due to higher standards of sourcing.Anonimu (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep ... I remember this article was nominated for deletion in 2022, and at that time I supported deletion (no vote) because the article contained mostly genealogical information and did not establish independent notability beyond being the child of a deposed monarch, which fell under WP:NOTINHERITED. Since then, the article has been substantially expanded with new sourcing. The current version demonstrates that she is independently notable and meets WP:GNG. I really wonder whether JoelleJay is still toxic on royalty-related articles, because I've noticed the same behavior since the early 2020s. Around 90% of the articles were ultimately kept even though JoelleJay voted 'delete' like a robot in several AfDs. Thanks. Thanks ~2026-28299-41 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Personal attacks aren't allowed here. Illini11 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Hmmm I wonder why this editor who apparently was very active in nobility discussions in the early 2020s and had strong opinions on my participation there has to use a temp account...
    Around 90% of the articles were ultimately kept even though JoelleJay voted 'delete' like a robot in several AfDs.
    Do provide your evidence here, because out of curiosity I looked at my AfD logs and out of the 75 AfDs on noble individuals from 2020 to early 2023, exactly 1 was kept and 4 were NC. That's not even including the dozens of articles on defunct royal succession lines that were deleted after I initiated their removal. JoelleJay (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I don't mean discussions about royalty or nobility. I'm referring to AfDs overall. You are the spiritual counterpart of scope creep (Wikipedia Daji). Making unstable rather than helping it by robot AfDs. ~2026-28299-41 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    This is not the place for personal squabbles. Illini11 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Illini11 Acting like a "saint" because of your previous ban? This is not hollywood. Thanks ~2026-28299-41 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    That's uncalled for. Illini11 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete, nothing has changed from my original statement in the closed AfD: just self-published sources and some artsy publication, nothing notable about the person.Anonimu (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep As I argued before, she has the same level of notability as her sisters Elena and Maria, yet I don't see a push to have their pages deleted. Sources exist mostly in Romanian based on Google search results. This article does not suffer from lack of notability, but lack of proper source utilization. Keivan.fTalk 23:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete: doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or specifically WP:CREATIVE criteria #3 (for coverage on her exhibits). In the following table, took a quick look at the five sources presented by Memez01923 above. Let me know if I got anything wrong. Bridget (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC) (edited 15:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC))reply
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Reads like it's based on a press release for her photo exhibition. No commentary on the exhibit itself. Public broadcaster ~ 78 words for an announcement that the exhibit will be open to the public at Elisabeta Palace in that summer. ✘ No
No Like the above, another notice for a photography exhibit. This is based on (including quotes) a press release from the Romanian Cultural Institute, which is hosting the exhibition. The third sentence is the only part that covers the exhibit and isn't quoted to the press release. National news agency Yes ✘ No
~ Part of the news broadcast (and the article text) is quotes from Sofia herself and the director and the deputy director of the Romanian Cultural Institute, which is not independent. Public broadcaster Yes ? Unknown
Yes Public broadcaster No Sofia's photo exhibit is only briefly discussed (3 sentences) within the context of this event celebrating the 150th anniversary of Queen Marie of Romania. Doesn't appear to be WP:100WORDS. ✘ No
No Reads like a press release. Putting this through Google Translate, one line reads "The “Ultramarine” postcard collection will be available for purchase at the Curtea Veche Publishing House book stand" ("Colecţia de cărţi poştale „Ultramarine” va putea fi achiziţionată de la standul de carte al Editurii Curtea Veche..."). Public broadcaster Yes Basically an itinerary of her exhibition. Also includes a short biography in the second half of the article. ✘ 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}}.
Her involvement in philanthropy is only sourced on her family's website. If she was indeed "heavily involved" you would expect at least some mention of it in secondary sources. Yet, secondary source only mention some photo albums and exhibitions, like another few tend of thousand amateur photographers with money to spare.Anonimu (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as keep. but relisting per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Sofia_of_Romania. It can be re-closed whenever another admin in satisfied with the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"Putting this through Google Translate"... Translation tools can introduce errors. SenshiSun (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Quite a few mentions (1,000+) of her in Romanian newspaper archives, although mostly brief or interview-y. Some coverage includes Jurnal Bihorean (~170 words about her photography), Gazeta de Sud (~200 word biography), Evenimentul Sibian (~170 words about her book launch), România Liberă (~100 word bio), and Matca (~140 words about her photography). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    • 754 of them are before she was born, so they're not about her. Another 62 before 1990 are mostly about a tennis cup named after Sofia of Spain. So we're left with under 300 mentions, mostly simple mentions or discussed along the other offspring of former King Michael.Anonimu (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
      • Regardless of whether its 1000 or 300 mentions, what are your thoughts on the sources I listed? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
        @BeanieFan11 I can't access the full text of those citations, can you copy them? JoelleJay (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
        Source one is: A sad December for the Royal House: Princess Sofia captured the charged atmosphere at the Săvărșin Royal Castle, after the King's death. The month of December is a month full of significance for the Royal Family. Princess Sofia of Romania captured, in a series of poignant photographs, the atmosphere at the Săvărșin Royal Palace during the first winter holidays spent without King Mihai. The photographs were published on the RomaniaRegala.ro website, under the title "Sad Săvărșin". "At the Royal Castle of Săvârsin, alongside Her Majesty Margareta, HRH Prince Radu and all her sisters, Her Royal Highness Princess Sofia took a series of photographs in the castle park, in the middle of winter, in a moment of sadness for the Royal Family, who are in mourning. Immortalized by the object of Princess Sofia's camera, the park seems to share the sadness of the inhabitants of the castle and Săvârsin," reads the text accompanying the photos on romaniaregala.ro. Dozens of readers appreciated the snapshots immortalized by the princess. Source two is: PRINCESS SOFIA: The fourth daughter of King Michael I and Queen Anne, Sofia was born in October 1957, in Greece. She is passionate about painting and photography and writing children's books. She studied art, design and photography in the USA (College for Visual Arts - New York, University of North Carolina, Corcoran College in Washington). She left the USA after the collapse of communism in Romania and returned to her family home in Switzerland, where, according to the profile provided by the Royal House, she played an important role in strengthening the secretariat in Versoix, and her sister, Margareta. Also together with Sofia, she came to Romania for the first time, in January 1990. Here, she contributed to the establishment of the Princess Margareta Foundation, where she was appointed vice president. In the 1990s, she was stripped of her rights and excluded from the line of succession, losing the title of Princess, following her marriage to Alain Biarneix, despite the opposition of her father, King Michael. In 1999, she gave birth to Elisabeth-Maria, in 2002, she divorced Biarneix, and in 2007 she regained her rights within the Royal House and was included again in the line of succession. Source three is: Yesterday, June 9, 1995, the "ASTRA" Library in Sibiu hosted the book launch of Her Highness Princess Sofia of Romania. This remarkable event was attended by Mr. Deputy Mayor Aurel Maxim, Mr. Deputy Lawyer Gavril Dejeu, Mrs. Ana Maria Grădinaru, the book's publisher, and Mr. Dan Gheorghe from the magazine "Flacăra". The speeches expressed the joy of having Her Highness Princess Sofia of Romania among us in Sibiu. The book presentation was made by Mrs. Ana Maria Grădinaru, through her, Princess Sofia bringing a message of love to the children of Romania mainly and further to all the children of the world. The funds raised from the sale of the book will be destined to the Princess Margareta Foundation to be used for charitable purposes. After the speeches, Her Highness Princess Sofia of Romania expressed her joy at being with the Romanians and launching her debut book entitled "The Child of the Sun" in Romania. Source four is: Born on October 29, 1957, in Tatoi (Greece), HRH Princess Sofia is the fourth daughter of HM King Michael. She studied in the 1970s at a school for nuns in London, and in the 1980s she attended university courses in fine arts and design in the USA. In June 1995, she published a children's prose book, entitled "The Child of the Sun", at the Dali Publishing House in Bucharest. HRH Princess Sofia is the vice-president of the "Princess Margareta" Foundation, which has branches in Romania, the USA, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and France Source five is: From her dedication to supporting humanitarian causes to her artistic vocation practiced at a professional level, Her Royal Highness Princess Sofia offers us a unique perspective on the events that shaped her path both as a member of the Royal Family of Romania and as a professional in the field of photography. Her Royal Highness's latest exhibition opened in Bucharest debuted with a photographic album published by Curtea Veche Publishing, From Stone and Steel. A Journey into the World of Urbex, which explores Romania's industrial heritage. But Her Highness's concerns do not stop here, paying particular interest to social themes, such as environmental education, children's literacy or the role of women in society, to which she dedicates initiatives and projects in which she is deeply involved, in the hope that every effort and activity undertaken will contribute to the well-being of the country and the Romanians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
        @BeanieFan11 Thank you! Do you have access via WikiLibrary (I haven't checked) or just a personal sub?
        The first of those is mostly just quoting the family's website, no? The second sounds like it's also just repeating her biography on the family website, and the third doesn't seem to have secondary coverage of her. The fourth is not much info, I definitely wouldn't call it SIGCOV, but probably the best so far. The fifth comes off as promotional, like it's straight from a press release.
        @Bridget, what do you think? JoelleJay (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
        I have access through the WikiLibrary. If RomaniaRegala.ro is the family website then yes the first source is mostly repeating that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
        @JoelleJay: I can't access the Arcanum sources but I agree with your assessment. The text provided by BeanieFan11 from source 1 and 2 both mention that they are based on info provided by the royal family, i.e., not independent. Source 3 seems like fine but brief coverage of her book, not her, and is expectedly flattering ("This remarkable event"). Ditto for source 5, coverage of one of her exhibitions.
        BeanieFan11, most of these 5 sources appear to be local or regional newspapers. Maybe Adevărul, as a Romanian newspaper of record, might have some more extensive pieces on her? Best, Bridget (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep. Sufficient independent third-party coverage. This article is more developed than the deleted one, so is not a direct recreation that is "substantially identical" to the deleted one. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Irma Aguayo

    [edit]


    Irma Aguayo (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)

    Fails WP:ARTIST. Created in 2019 for a class by SP account. Pushed into main space without proper review. Citations are for specific historical events or person depicted, not the work of the artist. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

    • Delete - Sadly, as an admirer of Chicano Park muralists and what these in-situ works brought to the community in San Diego as a source of pride, activism and celebration. Unfortunately this artist and her works have not stood the test of time. I was hopeful there might be significant coverage in books on Mexican-American murals and Chicano art, but found nothing. Fails GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: ineligible for soft close due to previously contested PROD
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASUKITE 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • Delete Far short of WP:ARTIST standards like "important figure," "widely cited by peers," and " represented within the permanent collections of several notable museums," as well as far short of every other Wikipedia article standard. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Ananta Mandal

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Ananta Mandal (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)

    An artist lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Last of The Time (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

    Keep - the article is imperfect, but I see Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and Bombay Times - that's plenty sufficient to clear GNG. Jishara (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

    Strong Keep – The subject appears to satisfy the requirements of WP and WP:ARTIST. There are multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the artist and his work, beyond routine mentions or primary sources.

    Examples of significant coverage from reliable sources include:

    Multifarious Impressions of Ananta Mandal – The Times of India. Capturing Landscapes on His Canvas – The Times of India. Treat for the senses – Millennium Post. Rich Canvases Saturate Watercolor Event – Houston Chronicle, which discusses Ananta Mandal's award-winning work at the Watercolor Art Society–Houston exhibition.

    Ananta Mandal: The monsoon muse - painting rain soaked realities – Astaguru. The subject's artworks have been auctioned and exhibited by AstaGuru, one of India's leading fine art auction houses, further demonstrating recognition within the professional art community.

    The subject has also held multiple solo exhibitions at established art institutions, including Jehangir Art Gallery, Nehru Centre, and Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata, demonstrating sustained professional recognition.

    The article also documents awards and recognitions from established organizations, including the Bombay Art Society, AIFACS, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata, Government College of Art & Craft, The San Diego Watercolor Society, The Watercolor Art Society-Houston and the Western Federation of Watercolor Societies.

    Taken together, these independent sources and achievements demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage and satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements.

    This is the article's 3rd AfD nomination. Unless substantial new evidence or policy-based arguments have been presented that were not considered in the previous discussions, repeated nominations may be unnecessary. Based on the available evidence, I support keeping the article. If consensus is to keep, the AfD templates should be removed following the close of this discussion. WitchScarlet (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

    • Delete. I see this has been withdrawn, but as I created a source assessment last night, I'd like to add it here as part of the record. It looks like this watercolorist has won a handful of regional watercolor awards and has had reviews in The Times of India , Bombay Times, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and the Afternoon Despatch & Courier see (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). 3 of the articles are "reviews" of the Nehru Centre Art Gallery GROUP exhibit in 2011. There is no particular notability for the Nehru Centre Art Gallery exhibition. The issue seems for be whether multiple mentions in borderline publications adds up to "significant coverage". Same with the regional "awards". Do multiple regional awards adds up to a significant award? In the previous AFD discussions, the quality of the sources is never convincingly presented. That is why the article keeps getting nominated for deletion. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. I would argue that is is time for this article to go. The sum of the sources do not add up to notable. I think mine is a substantial policy-based argument. WP:TOOSOON. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    No No No This looks like a user generated profile. ARtistsof the World has become https://talentsofworld.com/ananta-mandal-an-indian-artist ✘ No
    The Times of India puff piece ? Unknown
    No No No primary source blog post ✘ No
    Bombay Time via artist's website No Review of exhbition at the Nehru Centre Art Gallery. Artist can Rent space in this gallery. ✘ No
    The Indian Express No anoterh review of the Nehru Centre Art Gallery ✘ No
    "Get a glimpse of Mumbai's charisma on canvas". Hindustan Times. 22 March 2011.
    		 Hindustan Times another review of the Nehru Centre Art Gallery https://anantamandal.com/press/hindustan-times-22-march-2011-mumbai ? Unknown
    "A journey from reality by Ananta Mandal". Afternoon. 4 May 2010.
    		 Afternoon Despatch & Courier Mumbai India no by line. Weird column that relates to no event ? Unknown
    No No No $500.00 prize from the Northwest Watercolor Society ✘ No
    Yes Yes No Coverage of the award at the Northwest Watercolor Society ✘ No
    No No No Another link to $500.00 prize from the Northwest Watercolor Society ✘ No
    gale.com/apps/doc/A238274471/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=a6f8ef6f
    		 "Western Federation of Watercolor Societies exhibition held in Utah." dead link to "Watercolor" magazine. Does not seem to be a national publication ? Unknown
    gale.com/apps/doc/A155401931/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=17fcbd42
    		 San Diego Watercolor Society's 26th International Exhibition award winners dead link to American Artist ? Unknown
    gale.com/apps/doc/A214525552/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=5f16497b
    		 "North East Watercolor Society 2009 international exhibition winners." dead link to Watercolor magazine ? Unknown
    gale.com/apps/doc/A167026987/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=8c670000.
    		 "Awards presented at the 32nd Annual Western Federation of Watercolor Societies Exhibition." dead link to American Artist ? Unknown
    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}}.

    Strong keep – clearly notable – As with very strong independent sources the artist is meet clearly notable WP:NARTIST. More than 12 years after the article was created, it remains well sourced and supported by significant independent coverage, many significant shows, multiple significant all India and International Juried art shows awards, satisfying GNG. Based on the available sourcing and the outcomes of the previous two AfD discussions, I do not see a policy-based justification for deletion.

    I'm not sure why this article is being nominated for AfD for a third time, as I don't see any new policy-based evidence showing that the subject no longer meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However the deletion has been withdrawn.

    I'd like to add the source assessment table here. Examples of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage include:

    Accordingly, I believe the appropriate outcome is Keep. RedRabbit7 (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Note to closing admin: this appears to be a duplicate bolded !vote. Please take this into consideration when analyzing the outcome of this AfD. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Source assessment table prepared by User:RedRabbit7
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    Yes The Times of India Yes Yes Significant media coverage by The Times of India ✔ Yes
    Yes Houston Chronicle Yes Yes The subject won the First Place Award for the artwork Waiting for the Morning from the Watercolor Art Society–Houston, USA. ✔ Yes
    Yes The Times of India Yes Yes Independent coverage of the subject's solo exhibition at Kamalnayan Bajaj Art Gallery, Mumbai. ✔ Yes
    Yes The Indian Express Yes Yes Independent coverage of the subject's solo exhibition at Nehru Centre Art Gallery, Mumbai. ✔ Yes
    Yes India's leading fine art auction houses AstaGuru Yes Yes The subject's artworks have been auctioned and exhibited by AstaGuru ✔ Yes
    Yes The Times of India, Chandigarh Yes Yes Independent coverage of the subject's solo exhibition at Sector 9, Chandigarh ✔ Yes
    Yes Guru Kahan Art Museum, Gujarat Yes Yes The subject's work is on permanent display at the museum. ✔ Yes
    Yes Millennium Post Yes Yes Independent coverage of the subject's solo exhibition at Lokayata Art Gallery, New Delhi. ✔ Yes
    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}}.
    RedRabbit7, your interpretation of the sources in the table above is inaccurate. The first Times of India is obvious pay-to-play "news" fluff. The Houston Chronicle is not WP:SIGCOV, it's about the show, with only a few sentences about him wining a non-notable award in a juried (not curated) show. The second Times of India source is a Press Release, thus a primary source that does not contribute to notability. The India Express source is an interview thus, another primary source. AstaGuru is a blog, thus not a reliable source. The third Times of India source also appears to be a press release. The gurukahanmuseum source simply represents some pictures of his work, with zero information about it, nor editorial copy; it proves nothing other than he had a show at a non-notable museum; additionally it is a connected, non-independent source. And the Millennium Post source is another press release, and it is a primary connected source. None of this establishes notability.Netherzone (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Per RSP WP:TIMESOFINDIA states that TOI should be used with caution as post 1950, TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. TOI is known to publish paid advertorials...Paid advertorials may be of particular concern. Netherzone (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Netherzone I respectfully disagree with the characterization of several of the sources in the table. I believe the sources should be assessed individually and in accordance with WP and WP:NARTIST, rather than dismissing them collectively.

    The Times of India coverage should not be characterized as "pay-to-play" or promotional without evidence demonstrating that this was the case. If there is evidence that the article was paid-for content, that would be relevant to its reliability and independence; otherwise, it should be evaluated on the basis of its actual content and provenance.

    Regarding the Houston Chronicle article, I agree that its primary subject is the exhibition. The Watercolor Art Society–Houston, founded in 1975, is an established watercolor organization in the USA. Please visit Watercolor Art Society–Houston. In 2013, the subject won first place in its 36th International Exhibition. And I believe that the few sentences about the award, together with the published image of the subject's artwork, provide relevant evidence of its significance. A juried exhibition is distinct from a curated exhibition, as the selection process is conducted by a jury rather than solely by a curator.

    The Indian Express source is not an interview; please read the full article carefully. It concerns a curated exhibition,

    The third Times of India source appears to provide independent coverage of the subject's solo exhibition in Chandigarh

    Regarding the Gurukahan Museum source, I agree that a webpage primarily displaying images of an artist's work along with a profile of the subject. Without substantial editorial coverage, may have limited value for establishing notability. It can nevertheless provide evidence of an exhibition and display, subject to the reliability and independence of the institution.

    The Millennium Post article is also worth considering. The full published article soft copy is available here: Millennium Post It is an independent newspaper article, not a press release.

    Also, you mentioned some dead links on your previws assessment table. These links were originally added by different users with supporting evidence. Link rot is not unusual with older online newspaper and magazine articles, and a dead URL alone does not establish that the publication did not exist. Where possible, the publication details or archived versions should be considered.

    Finally, I think the overall question should be whether the available independent sources provide sufficient significant coverage to satisfy WP:NARTIST, rather than whether every individual source independently establishes notability. In my view, the combination of the independent newspaper coverage, exhibition coverage, and other available sources provides sufficient grounds to consider the subject notable. Accordingly. RedRabbit7 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    @RedRabbit7, with respect to your comment, you are clearly misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting WP:NARTIST criteria. The subject of the article fails every point of WP:NARTIST; 1) he is not considered an important figure in the art world, nor is he widely cited by peers or successors - if he was, there would be chapters about him in art history books and feature articles in art magazines; 2) he has not originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique; 3) he has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 4) his work has not (a) become a significant monument, (b) he has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, juried shows are pay-to-play they are not considered significant exhibitions, being in shows like the Venice Biennale, or Whitney Biennial or Documenta are significant shows while these little watercolor juried shows are not considered significant by any stretch of the imagination (c) he has not won significant critical attention, (which differs from simple praise) nor (d) his work is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
    Some friendly advice by the way: it is best practice to strike your second bolded "K**p" !vote. Sometimes closing editor or administrator may "count" !votes by searching for bolded words. In that case your reiteration of a bold "K**p" could be seen as a duplicate !vote. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    @Netherzone, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I believe you are misinterpreting the criteria and not fully considering WP:NARTIST. The criteria are not cumulative requirements that an artist must satisfy in every respect; satisfying one of the relevant criteria may be sufficient to establish presumed notability, subject to the guideline's conditions. And I believe that's why the core editor understood the facts and the deletion nomination was withdrawn, but you are ignoring these facts and misinterpreting the sources.

    I think the subject appears to satisfy the relevant criteria under WP:NARTIST. The subject has produced a body of work addressing subjects including city life in Mumbai and Kolkata, Durga Puja, the Varanasi Ghats, horses in motion, and the landscapes of Rajasthan. These works have received coverage in independent periodicals and reviews, and the subject has participated in significant exhibitions. The subject's artworks have also been auctioned and exhibited through India's leading auction houses, including AstaGuru. The subject has exhibited his artworks at several notable galleries and institutions, including Jehangir Art Gallery, Triveni Kala Sangam, Nehru Centre, and the Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata, as well as at the international art fair World Art Dubai. The subject's work is also on permanent display at the Guru Kahan Art Museum in Gujarat. The subject has received awards and recognition from established organizations, including the Bombay Art Society, AIFACS, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata, Government College of Art & Craft, the San Diego Watercolor Society, the Watercolor Art Society–Houston, and the Western Federation of Watercolor Societies.

    Taken together, these independent sources and documented achievements provide evidence supporting the subject’s notability under WP:NARTIST

    I believe user Netherzone is overlooking or disregarding several of the facts presented above. In particular, you characterized the Times of India article of the subject as pay-to-play or promotional, also suggest that significant juried shows are pay-to-play. However, No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this particular article and the juried shows are pay-to-play or that they are not considered significant exhibitions, or that the article was paid for or otherwise non-independent.If there is evidence supporting that characterization, it should be presented and assessed; otherwise, the article should be evaluated on the basis of its actual content and provenance.

    Regarding "K**p" in bold: Every editor here is well-educated and capable of making their own assessment, so nobody should consider it a second vote. Please don't be overly concerned about this. Thank you for your friendly advice by the way. RedRabbit7 (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    • Delete - While this autobiography (per talk page history of creator), has been withdrawn by the nominator, I strongly agree with User:WomenArtistUpdates that this fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. The sources are either trivial mentions that do not provide in-depth significant coverage and the one potententially good source (Times of India) is indeed a promotional "puff piece" that does not provide in-depth critical analysis of his work. Awards are non-notable. It's WP:PROMO and should not be retained in the encyclopedia. Having said that, the work itself is well crafted, but that is not a criteria for notability nor inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • Delete: Fully agree with Netherzone. By a search on Google, there appear to be a lack of sources. However, articles clearly do exist about the subject. The article about Mandal on Wikipedia and the Times of India, the major news of India do seem to be promotional to me. That there is a major problem about paid editing in India news that affects the notability of subjects, though it is not always applicable. Significant coverage and in-depth analysis is essential for artists. Babin Mew (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • Delete Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia standards. WomenArtistUpdates and others are correct. Coverage here is at best insignificant and WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor local art shows. When one of the highlighted "more than 40 awards internationally" is actually just an "Excellence Award - $507 Value" we know we are far from any sort of WP:ARTIST standards like "regarded as an important figure" or "created a significant or well-known body of work." Asparagusstar (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    • RedRabbit7's very good work on sourcing and countering arguments for deletion in this discussion seems enough to save this page, especially since the nomination has been withdrawn. At the very least no consensus can be found on removing the page from mainspace, just wide disagreement on what otherwise seems like adequate sourcing which, please note, has been studied and affirmed by two previous closes. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Brunswick star

    [edit]


    Brunswick star (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)

    Performing WP:AFD2 for a WP:TA requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 80 § No sources for the name "Brunswick Star":

    == No sources for the name "Brunswick Star" ==

    Hi, so I'm here because at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion it says "post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else perform the nomination, making sure to explain your rationale there."

    The article is Brunswick Star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_star. It has two references but neither even uses the term Brunswick Star.

    The reference desk editors tried to find sources to improve this and could not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2026_July_1#Brunswick_star

    Notably, they also couldn't find the term used in published heraldry books.

    So possibly this is not a real term and the article should be deleted?

    thanks. ~2026-25530-49 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

    FaviFake (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

    Coat of arms of Meath

    [edit]


    Coat of arms of Meath (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 propose merging to County Meath because the article has existed since 2007, and could easily be a section titled "symbols" or something. No need for full article currently (maybe a list of coat of arms of irish counties could be made! I'd be willing to help, but dunno if thats too relevant) Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

    • Comment. While I'm inclined to support a merge/redirect somewhere (as the text is relatively short, has been for a long time, and could likely be covered with improved context in the article on the place the arms represent), I'm not sure the proposed target is ideal. Can the nom elaborate more on the proposed target? What would a "symbols" section in the County Meath article look like? And, perhaps, would Kingdom of Meath not be a better place for such a section (and redirect target)? I say this for several reasons. Not least that the coat of arms given in the infobox for County Meath is the arms of the county council, which is different to the historic arms (and trying to cover both in the article on the modern county could be confusing/complicating)?... Guliolopez (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
      A symbols section on that article would include details on the county council's arms and the historic arms (and the county colours if theres enough that could be written about them from reliable sources). To get an example; Roxburghshire has a Coat of Arms section, which I imagine this would look similar to
      I do think that merging to kingdom of meath is also a good idea. Maybe both could be done? Dont see any harm in merging to both Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
      Hi. While we could perhaps briefly discuss the arms in a "symbols" section of both County Meath and Kingdom of Meath, the redirect (resulting from a merge/redirect) can only be to one title. Personally, as above, I think Kingdom of Meath is a more appropriate target. And, as it stands, don't support a merge/redirect to County Meath. But would support a merge/redirect to Kingdom of Meath. (For the simple reason that the subject arms are not (or are no longer) the arms of County Meath. But are the historical arms of the Kingdom of Meath.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
      I think that we could merge to both and have the redirect go to kingdom of meath, as that is the origin of them Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
      Hi. While a "merge to both" is not a good idea, I would support merging the bulk of the content to a section of Kingdom of Meath and making Coat of arms of Meath a redirect to that section. The County Meath article could contain a small amount of relevant text, in summary style, with a link to the main article/target/section. Guliolopez (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Oppose merge to County Meath, mostly for the reasons laid out by Guliolopez but also because I see no great need for any merge. The article is not too short to be useful (compare Emblems of the Kalmar Union, Coat of arms of Congress Poland etc.). It does the job. Meanwhile, a lot of the (admittedly interesting) info in the current page would be a little extraneous in Kingdom of Meath and County Meath. References in both Kingdom of Meath and probably County Meath as in Guliolopez's latest comment would be helpful. That said, if other heraldry etc. relating to the Kingdom of Meath are found I would support renaming to accommodate them. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply


    Visual arts - Proposed deletions

    [edit]

    Visual arts - Images for Deletion

    [edit]

    Visual arts - Deletion Review

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts&oldid=1368363598"