Talk:Rick Kirby

Merger from Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)
It appeared from the discussion at Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) that there was some sentiment for merging Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) into the Rick Kirby article, especially among those who felt that this particular sculpture was not independently notable. I am reproposing that merger on that basis, and opening discussion. I have notified the participants in the Afd of this discussion. As I see it much of the material contained in the scupture article is not actually about the sculpture, and would not be necessary to keep (although it will remain in the redirects history after merger.) --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far more notable than many subjects of such articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's notable, and has received independent and significant coverage. Merging it with Rick Kirby would give the one sculpture a disproportionate weight compared to his other works; this happened when in the previous discussion someone merged it without waiting for consensus, causing another person to (incorrectly) state that "it seems certain that ... he only has one sculpture worth writing about in detail". --Usernameunique (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: as per Usernameunique. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Much of the coverage seems to be about the visitor center, of which this is only a part,. Disproportionate coverage can be dealt with by including only the actually relevant material.  DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disclaimer: I was pinged to then original deletion discussion, but, for some reason failed to participate. There too, I would have opposed merging on grounds outlined above; viz, that it would be far too WP:UNDUE to satisfactorily transpose the information without losing much of the sourced material. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A number of editors mention WP:UNDUE, but fail to address  DGG's point that Disproportionate coverage can be dealt with by including only the actually relevant material. --Bejnar (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The unspoken assumption of such a statement is that some of the material in the article is irrelevant. Sutton Hoo Helmet is a site-specific artwork, however, and so any discussion of it need necessarily include discussion of its context; the removal of that information in an to attempt to jam two articles together would fail to give a holistic account of the sculpture. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence the long article at Sutton Hoo. --Bejnar (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)