Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19th Century Drinking Horn


 * 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 keep. Consensus is the subject is notable enough for the content to be kept. Whether it's a standalone or merged, and under what name, is a matter of further editorial discussion, but there is no consensus to delete the text. Star  Mississippi  19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

19th Century Drinking Horn

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

One of many drinking horns. Nothing special about this particular one, as shown by the lack of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per nom - As stated, this is just one example of a wide variety of similar items that is not particularly notable as an individual piece. All of the sources except one are not on this piece at all, being either on the Kuba Kingdom or on drinking horns in general.  And the one source that is on this specific piece is just its description page from the museum where it is on display.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kuba Kingdom - Per my comment below, while this particular piece is not notable enough on its own for an independent article, there is room for the information on the type of object as described in the "Object History" section to be included in a broader topic. So, I am changing my recommendation accordingly.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep We have so pathetically few (and mostly poor) articles on African art that I'm not going to be complicit in removing one, although the nominator's arguments are strictly correct. Keen deletionists like to assert that if an article like this is allowed to remain there would be a flood of other ones.  In some fields this is true, but absolutely not here. It could easily be merged to drinking horn, or turned into African drinking horn.  It would be nice if nominators sometimes gave thought to alternative encyclopedic solutions!   Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp - why not the Africa-list? Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add it yourself! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I never know how. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Africa here. Then add to the top of the list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per well written comment by Johnbod. Wikipedia's African art collection is better with this page in it. The object is on display at a major art museum and has adequate sourcing, not seeing a problem here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is not adequate sourcing. As I mentioned in my comment above, there is only one source that is actually on the specific piece, and it is the description from the museum that is displaying it.  The rest of the sources are on the much more general topics of the Kuba Kingdom or on these types of drinking horns in general, not on this specific piece.  They don't even mention this specific art piece, and in one case, doesn't even mention this type of art, simply stating the name of the person who sold the piece to the museum in a completely different context.  Now, there is certainly an argument to be made that a general article on these types of objects could be valid, or information on these types of objects could be added to Kuba Kingdom for sure.  But, an entire article on a single example that has no sources showing that it, in specific, is a notable example would not be the proper way to do it.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An exhibiting museum's description is usually a major source in visual arts articles, enough to establish notability for the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not if its the only valid source on a topic, given that the WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources. And again, its the only source presented here that is on this specific piece. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, for museum verification of visual arts entries. The GNG guideline has no set number, and states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." On visual arts pages a major museum like the Art Institute of Chicago vouching for and exhibiting the piece establishes notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Verification and notability are two different things. Nobody is doubting that the information here is correct or valid, simply that the object, as an individual art piece, is not a notable enough topic for an independent article.  Even Johnbod, whose argument you are citing as your reason for keeping, admits in his post that the nomination is strictly correct, and the argument to keep is an WP:IAR situation.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, the Art Institute of Chicago page and on-exhibit status takes care of all of that. And am I mistaken or does a source place this object on exhibition loan to The Met in 2012-2013? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I was doubtful about this and note there is nothing about it in the article drinking horn, which should perhaps be rectified. I would suggest as more specific name, such as Kuba drinking horn, reflecting its provenance.  A map showing where DRC is, rather than where Kuba is/was is unhelpful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the name is useless, but that can be dealt with later. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge There's nothing notable enough about it for it's own page, but it fits in nicely over at Kuba art. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge - I completely agree with Johnbod Mommmyy (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Either Merge to Kuba art, or repurpose into African drinking horn (don’t know enough on the topic to say if that would be notable) or similar. This object alone is not notable, but would easily belong on either of those pages. postleft  on mobile!  18:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article can be grown from how it looks now, it needs some more work though. A merge to Kuba art is also fine. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ok you won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, rescope to Kuba drinking horn to cover all examples from that culture.--Pharos (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2021 (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.