Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article attracted my eye as strikingly differing in style from the rest of wikipedia. Since I am not an expert in arts, I placed a number of tags for cleanup and deleted redundant categories. The author reverted these edits several times. For a month no one else was interested in fixing the page. Therefore reluctantly I decided to do something by myself. I did a bit with the top, but when I proceeded further, I was surprized to notice that apparently thorough references do not discuss the painting in question at all ! Instead, they support general discussions about arts, gynecology, etc. Neither the long bibliography has any relevance. So I used google and was further surpized to find that "gyn talk" -wikipedia "keith fox" gives a mere 7 hits. Therefore I conclude that the page must be deleted as rather nonnotable. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete in all but the rarest of cases, creative works (songs, fanfiction, artworks, etc) by non-notable people are not notable enough for articles. Also, it takes no great effort to debunk the article's claimed "sources" either, as pretty much all of them are books published long before these paintings even existed, and thus are highly unlikely to discuss the paintings themselves. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete an elaborate essay based loosely on a non-notable artwork. Essentially OR, & this is not the pace for it. It could happen that someone enters an article on an artwork before they think of entering the one for the artist, though--that's not all that unusual, & we usually suggest reorganizing the article to be about the artist. Butthere is not the least indication that either of these are notable. There would need to me major exhibitions or third party published reviews .DGG (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) r
 * Delete--yes, the bibliography does not confer notability on the topic. Not a bad term paper for an art appreciation class, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does not establish how its subject matter meets Wikipedia notability requirements. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see from the article or the supplied sources how this meets our notability requirements. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RogueNinja talk  05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be of minor importance. Article seems a coatrack for gender and medicine issues. JFW | T@lk  09:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per deleters. Doesn't meet notability standards. Johnbod (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is original research that fails WP:V.  freshacconci  talk talk  10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This article seems disengenuous at best.....please let it go..Modernist (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There aren't enough independent, third-party reliable sources available to write a proper article.  We need published reviews by legitimate art critics to meet Wikipedia's basic WP:V requirements for an article on this subject.  Joseph Levi, I see that you're a new editor.  You may not know that what we mean by notable is "How much information has already been published about this?", and not "How important is it to the world?"  Something that is incredibly important, but for which we can find no, or very few, independent, third-party reliable sources at this time is always deemed non-notable for the purpose of meeting Wikipedia's inclusion policies.  If proper reviews/art criticism becomes available later, then we can certainly re-create the article at that time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice I moved extended comment and response from the author of the article and others to Talk for this AfD. I've tried to explain the situation to him on his Talk page, including what he can do that might serve his purposes and perhaps ours. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.