Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiArt

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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

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

completely unnotable wiki. sourced to itself, poor quality sources, and trivial mentions. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Websites. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been editing WP for over 10 years. I took a quick look at WikiArt and can find no criteria for deletion present. The subject of the article is notable, since it was the topic of a serious article in the Smithsonian Magazine, one of its references. The article is written well, although a bit short, and contains references for its major points. There is no problem with WP:POVorWP:OR. On the other hand, the complaint that triggered this request for deletion is a brief, uncapitalized sentence that gives no examples to justify any of its four complaints. Because the complaint isn't reasonable as it currently stands, and because the topic relates to Ukraine, a country at war, my guess is that this deletion attempt is politically motivated. Again, that is just a guess, but it would explain its apparent attempt to vandalize WP. David Spector (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ah, yes, my nomination is of course politically motivated.

seriously, though, let's take a look at the sources:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
ref 1		this is a blog.	? moot	✘ No
ref 2		this is oprah's personal blog.	? moot	✘ No
ref 3		? moot	presumably just proof of the website's age (although the ref is borked).	✘ No
ref 4	borked, but is clearly the website's own blog	? moot	? moot	✘ No
ref 5	subject website	? moot	? moot	✘ No
ref 6			here's the article which you (presumably) claim to count towards wikiart's notability. yet the only mention of it is this: To train their algorithm​, researchers used the more than 80, 000 images from WikiArt.org, one of the largest online collections of digital art. the rest is explaining the technology using wikiart's database. it's just mentioned as a database!	✘ No
ref 7			or is it this one? still the same problem, the only mention of it is this: The other network is the “discriminator” network, which is trained on 81,500 images from the WikiArt database, spanning centuries of painting. that's it.	✘ No
ref 8		?	still the same problem! the only mention of it is this: For the training, they used 81,449 paintings by 1,119 artists in the publicly available WikiArt data set. nothing so far is significant coverage.	✘ No
ref 9		?	it's the same thing again and again. mere referrals to wikiart as a database, nothing more.	✘ No
ref 10		?	i think you know what i'm going to say already.	✘ No
ref 11			only mention? trivial! The team collected a set of 15,000 portraits from online art encyclopedia WikiArt, spanning the 14th to the 19th century, and fed them into the GAN algorithm.	✘ No
ref 12			big surprise, it's the same darn thing! To start, Cetinic and her colleagues analyzed more than 100,000 images from WikiArt. that's it.	✘ No
ref 13		?	go on, guess.	✘ 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}}.

nothing here works. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, letthere, for those details. I will reply here to each point when I have time to do so. David Spector (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the source table, that's not a significant coverage. Artem.G (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "per nom" mean? I can't find a good definition of this phrase. Does it mean "because of its name"? If so, what is wrong with the name 'WikiArt'? David Spector (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"per nominator" lettherebedarklight晚安 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't understand "per nominator". Nominator is defined as "someone who officially suggests that a person should be considered to do a particular job, take part in an election, receive an honour, etc." Who suggested that someone be considered for doing something? Can I ask that you please use standard English here. Your deletion request is partially based on "per nom", and this makes no sense in English. David Spector (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this prominent art topic per major article mentions in Smithsonian Magazine, Time, and the others. Editors, please read the 'Reference' section of the page, the results of the source table seem to be opinions. Opinions differ, and this notable topic has been used by researchers and artists for years for its defined purpose. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  really? the mentions are all trivial... lettherebedarklight晚安 13:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm reading them as central to the articles that they appear in (i.e. Time, Smitstonian Magazine articles on digital art). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  there's one sentence about wikiart and then they immediately drop the subject. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lettherebedarklight nominated the article for deletion. Basically this is a shorthand to say Artem agrees with Let...'s nomination. Star Mississippi 13:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination says that the sources are of poor quality, which can be refuted just by looking at the 'References' section of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how is that refuted? Non of the sources in the table (=in the article) is about the subject, it just mentions it sometimes in different contexts (like using wikiart's database to train the model, etc). That's not significant coverage. Artem.G (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the previously mentioned refs, it's also the subject of a couple of academic papers- IEEE and HCI 2017 — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on its content and multiple publications about it, this is a notable resource. For example, [1]or[2], in addition to references provided by others above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by Sean Brunnock and maybe the second source from My very best wishes, which are currently the only sources here that give any indication that the subject has significant coverage. I suggest that some of the keep !voters familiarize themselves with the difference between "significant coverage" and "being mentioned" before trying to participate in deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Languages