Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Wellhead


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Antique Wellhead

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references given dont explain how this wellhead is independently notable, and not just an example of a notable style of Venetian public decoration. I was not aware that WP has articles on each work in any given museum. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Wellhead or rename to reflect that this is a sub article of the Indianapolis Museum of Art BO &#124; Talk 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk )  00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Strong Keep. Your argument for deletion is without basis. This artwork is absolutely notable, as it is part of the historic fabric of the Oldfields Estate, a 100 year old National Historic Landmark that is on the grounds of the Indianapolis Museum of Art. It is a well-researched and well-written article that describes part of this important cultural fabric. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is but one of a large number of articles about objects belonging to one museum, many of which should also be deleted as unnotable, e.g. Urns (Indianapolis). I may go through the long list if I find time. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I have started going through the list,. We really need some discussion of how to deal with this before other museums copy the absurdity. Mhy view at the moment is that it is appropriate for us to have an article on every major work of art by a famous artist,even when that is several hundreds. It is probably appropriate for us to have a brief listing of major works of art by notable but not famous artists in the article on the artist, though I can not say where to draw the line here. It is not appropriate for us to have a listing for every copy of every work of art produced in multiples, though we might have one for the work itself. Such articles should probably give the locations if there are only a few known, but it would be a very unusual copy that would be worth an article by itself, though I can think of a few exceptions. I am selecting for deletion  on that basis, and will then probably start in merging. FWIW, the spree of articles from this museum is not on-going, so the way we deal with these will be to some extent a precedent.   DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * what physical object within its boundaries is not part of the fabric of the estate? I am aware of the importance of even industrially produced works of decorative art, but there needs to be some selectivity. Are all object that the museum holds there absolutely notable? Every one of them? Do all deserve equally elaborate treatment? in a general encyclopedia? (of course they do deserve detailed treatment  in the handbook to the collections at the museum, which ought to be on line and linked to from the article on the estate.
 * I was reluctant to mention conflict of interest. You are according to your user page a conservator employed by the museum. You therefore need to be very careful in selecting what to write about and how to write it.  (I am Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts--I intend to enter articles for a few unique manuscripts or manuscript collections of particular musical or historical importance, not the hundreds of thousands of individual unique library and museum items that the library owns.) The rule is NOT INDSCRIMINATE.
 * Further, you have zero independent sources. Every source discussing the object that you have included is published by the museum if you could show that this particular object --not such objects in general, this particular object in the collection, is the subject of substantial independent work by scholars unconnected with the museum I will certainly grant its suitability for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge Interesting but not independently notable. This is an incorrectly named article - it is a generic title for a specific item.  Either delete or merge with Indianapolis Museum of Art or an article on Oldfields Estate if exists DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please someone point to the notability standards for individual artworks; they exist in no substantial or individualized category. This deletion is at best coming down to personal taste, which is absurd.
 * 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.