Talk:Carousel In The Country

Please don't merge
"Carousel In The Country" should probably NOT be merged considering the depth of its explanation. In a given week, thousands of people view this art in person in public places (i.e. not just on the web). As it stands, this page is not too lengthy, but to lump the content into the artist's main page would be distracting to that page's flow and this work of art has a significant enough presence in the art world to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Please note that after some consideration I did agree with merging this same artist's Self Portrait, because the explanation in that case was only one sentence long and was also relatively self evident. But such really isn't the case with this page. Howard352 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support for Merge Oops, unfortunately I overlooked this painting in my original afd for several other Sherman painting articles which ended in a merge decision. The same argument about public exhibition was applicable to the other paintings discussed. This article is very similar to the other painting articles. Consensus decision after the afd were to substantially cut down article content and merge to main Sherman article. See Articles for deletion/Moses (painting) Bwithh 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for DELETE or Merge This page consists of (going by section) an ad for a print, a short description of the original work in question, a BIG ad for a print (with link to buy!!!!), and a bio. So 85% of the article is either ad or bio... the first is a Wikipedia violation, the rest is covered at the artist’s article. In general this page is such an ad its a joke that it has even survived this far. Serious WP:SPAM and WP:COI here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support for merge As per AfD discussion, please do go ahead and complete the merge. Theres actually not much to cut down. The section about the artist and his picture could be removed, because its going into his page. The rest all gets its own para. Seems fine to merge it. xC | ☎  17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)