Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). 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|Artists|~~~~}} 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 Artists (in the visual arts only). 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 April 2016) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Artists

edit

Clark Sheppard

edit
Clark Sheppard (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)

Promotional, and there are some self-published sources. Could not find anything about them online. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flóra Borsi

edit
Flóra Borsi (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 not established through reliable, independent sources. Two sources are from a camera company's website; one is an interview with her; one is her own website; one is her biography for a gallery opening. No true claim to notability expressed - the "Heroine" award is not the "first" winner - she's one of 8 or so to win it in the 3rd year the award was given by the camera company. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I apologize for any issues caused and sincerely hope to have the support and guidance of other editors as I continue on this path. 1374maafba (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment another WP:WALLOFTEXT explaining abusing WP policies by newbie status. Canvassing is not permitted. LLMs are not permitted. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The BBC and CBSNews sources that 1374maafba added to the article yesterday suffice to establish notability. As for the likely LLM generated walls of text in the AFD discussion, that's not great, but not a reason for deletion of the article. 13 is a new user, they'll get there eventually. We were all new users once. I personally didn't have LLMs available to me when I was a new user, but, you know, there but for the grace of God.... --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it unfair to ask fellow editors to AGF of a SPA machine that has gamed the system, and published two non-notable articles on their 20th and 21st edits. We have enough volunteer work to do. This is not a net gain to the project.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    13: advice, listing 28 sources in the AFD is better than nothing, but actually using the best ones from there in the article is better. Ideally the way you'd have written that article was by starting from that list of sources, not by waiting for the AFD. The best ones means respected news sources, that go in depth, and not written by the article subject. Similarly, improving the article is better than writing a lot in the AFD. For the AFD, short is good. Actually for the article short and simple would be good too, phrases like "exploring themes of identity and the complexities of the human experience" and "utilizing metaphor and visual storytelling to convey deep emotional narrative" don't really mean very much. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your guidance. I'm a new editor and still gaining experience, so I really appreciate your help as I learn. 1374maafba (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP:THREE sources provided above demonstrate her notability. I'd like to remind everyone to assume good faith. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion has been tainted by widespread canvassing, attempts to remove other people's comments here, and a smear campaign against the nom. I find it necessary to relist this for a clearer consensus. @1374maafba: you are very close to losing your editing privileges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Doctor Octoroc

edit
AfDs for this article:
Doctor Octoroc (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)

Lack of GNG. Couldn't find more sources that aren't the subject's videos masquerading as sources or marginally related to the subject. Go D. Usopp (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked the sources listed above as supposedly meeting the WP:GNG standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent." These sources listed above are "Kotaku, 1UP.com, Offworld, GameSetWatch, Variety." I did not find "Variety" in the article and a google search for "Octoroc" on variety.com found absolutely nothing as did a search on Variety's website itself. All of the other suggested sources are either extremely short insignificant coverage, or an interview that is not independent of the subject. Source assessment table is below. Fails WP:GNG completely. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Asparagusstar
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
      Just six short sentences ✘ No
      Just four short sentences and a track listing ✘ No
      Just five short sentences ✘ No
      Just three sentences ✘ No
  An interview of the subject is not independent of the subject     ✘ No
      Just two sentences ✘ No
      Just five sentences ✘ No
      Just three sentences ✘ 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}}.
  • Comment Apologies I'm not sure where I got Variety from in my previous comment. Thank you for doing the source analysis above, its useful. However, I do disagree with your interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, which does not focus on the length of sources. Rather, you should be assessing whether the sources have details relating to the artist, and that the mentions are non-trivial. Whilst they are short, the Kotaku and Gamesetwatch articles both contain details relating directly to the subject, and are non-trivial in nature. If we take all the Kotaku coverage as a whole, it would easily meet sigcov; ditto with gamesetwatch. Both meet RS per WP:VG/RS.
Would be good to have a source analysis of all the article's sources, as it includes some listed at WP:RSPSOURCES like Wired.
Separately to the above, adding some further sources to this discussion I've been able to find:
  • This article [4] from music journalist Alex Rawls (who has bylines in Spin, Rolling Stone, Offbeat among others)
  • Some newspaper articles about one of his art projects [5] & [6]
Nil🥝 02:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has already wasted enough of our time with ridiculous claims about nonexistent coverage in Variety and how a two sentence blog post provides the Wikipedia standard of significant coverage to write an encyclopedia article about a living person. There is no need to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a genuine mistake which I already apologised for; that shouldn't be grounds for dropping AGF.
Had you done a full source analysis of the article's references, you may have realised I probably got Variety and Vulture mixed up. Yes, that's on me.
But I'm not here to waste anyone's time, and I'm not against the article being deleted – I just want to ensure that any such decision is done so robustly. Nil🥝 22:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a table analyzing every source this editor wasted our time with by falsely claiming met WP:GNG, including time I spent searching for a source they claimed was in Variety which there is no evidence even exists. I have no idea why I am still getting responses from them. There is no need for them to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point, now you're just being WP:UNCIVIL. Yes, I made a mistake, and I apologise for it.
If that's ridiculous to you, you're welcome to walk away. Nil🥝 23:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why I am still getting responses from them. There is no need for them to waste further time reiterating these sorts of ridiculous ideas. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out, there is an article on Variety if you search under his real name... Just not enough to count as sigcov, however. Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the table above does not evaluate the reliable column. But the sourcing here is at maximum relevant to write about a music album, not a biography. Also the last two sources are local coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD doesn't exclude them as counting if At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is used. Whether they pass WP:NWORK may be more of an issue... Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did a source analysis of every reference currently in the article here, and it's... not great. The best source towards meeting GNG is the profile I introduced above. In addition to what's in the article, I found the following which appears to meet sigcov:
The biggest issue here is when we apply WP:NWORK to the existing sigcov. Ideally, there'd be one more source in order to comfortably pass GNG. Nil🥝 06:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the effort searching for sources. But the Spiegel article is filed under Angeklickt and the last paragraphs are purely showcasing videos. Whether the author of My Spilt Milk is a journalist or not, it is still a blog. I don't think both can meet GNG. IgelRM (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Spilt Milk should fit the definition of subject-matter expert under WP:BLOGS, as Rawls is an established music journalist and academic. Rawls aside, I totally accept that overall GNG is pretty weak / difficult to establish here though. Nil🥝 21:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for non-notability. The above comments of ZXCVBNM match my views which, as Nil mentions, I have tried to capture in WP:NOTWORK, although this is not formal policy. The article does some helpful and unhelpful things: it provides a lot of reliable secondary coverage about the works of the artist quite amply, but tends to over-source and lean on trivial coverage. Examples of this are using the one sentence in the Clair book about the subject - Chiptune artist Doctor Octoroc raised more than $10,000 on Kickstarter to [create a tribute album] made "using only the five monophonic channels available on the NES RP2A03 sound chip." and then extrapolates what is obviously a quote from the Kickstarter to generalise about the artist's equipment and setup. The only significant coverage about the artist I can see is the Spiegel article and the Alex Rawls blog - accepting that Rawls is an able subject matter expert and this source is valuable. It's almost there. But it isn't enough to reliably furnish a WP:BLP for an article about the subject rather than about the works the subject has created, given the higher standard for BLP articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Artists&oldid=1307802197"