Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copy of Diana of Versailles


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy of Diana of Versailles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular one is one of many miniature modern mass=produced copies of a famous Roman copy of a lost ancient Greek sculpture. The original work very properly has an article. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy    DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - difficult to see any justification for this sort of thing, as nom says. Please delete the others also... I suppose a note of major copies in the original work's article could just about be argued for, but even that is marginal. There would have to be a significant amount of 'local story' (not just one event, either) around a copy to make it a keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong Keep.. Your argument for deletion is completely biased and ridiculous. You have failed to complete even the most minor bit of research as to the historical importance of this artwork, but have simply offered to delete it and other because you personally don't think it is important. This artwork, which is over 100 years old, is part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. I suggest you either begin to research the artworks you are trying to delete or leave them alone. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (the other nominated works as well). I don't see the supposed "historical importance of this artwork" at all. It is a relatively recent copy which hasn't received significant attention as a work of art in any relevant magazines: it has only been included in lists of outdoor sculptures at the Indianapolis museum. We should do the same: keep List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and only create articles for truly notable individual artworks there (not even all the modern original works, and certainly not this copy, nor the Landon-Era Birdbath (Indianapolis) and so on. Fram (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments at Articles for deletion/Diana with Dog. Another Oldfields copy that's not individually notable. Huon (talk) 14:43, 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. (R McC)
 * They come under WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - "Significant" and "independent" are the key issues in cases like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A copy is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is absurd. These artworks are part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. Plus this article meets all of the general notability guidelines. Just because the editors here don't see its value based on their personal opinion, doesn't make it any less valuable. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oldfields is not up for deletion (and would never be deleted): but notability is not inherited, not every aspect of a notable subject is notable as well. Take e.g. an important art museum: many of the paintings will be individually notable, but etchings, prints, lithographs, ... not: what I mean is that an etching by Rembrandt is a notable subject, but the particular copy of that etching in the Louvre, or the Rijksmuseum, is not notable, even though that individual copy will be mentioned in both works on the Rijksmuseum and works on Rembrandt. Here, you have a run-of-the-mill copy of a notable sculpture, which is part of a notable estate; but the specific copy which is up for deletion is not notable. Fram (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment and questions. If this is 160cm tall, then it may be smaller than the original but it is hardly a "miniature" as I am used to seeing the word used. (Though yes, the article itself so describes it.) Yes, this is part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. But surely many copies, whether fastidious or loose, are part of the cultural fabric of many national historic landmarks. That (i) X is part of Y and (ii) Y is notable does not, I think, entail that (iii) X is notable. But very possibly this is notable. Is there commentary on it, or its siting? It's clear that care has gone into the article, which is soberly written. I particularly appreciate the candor of it seems to be one example of a sculpture mass-produced for estate grounds decoration, and I don't think that being a single example of something produced in quantity necessarily makes it unencyclopedic. (Of the hundreds of examples of "first folio" of Shakespeare, some may merit their own articles -- though as far as I am aware none has its own article.) I'm willing to believe that its survival is rare or remarkable or both. Persuade me. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep as effectively a sample article for a significant type of object, that we don't have a general article on, namely 19th century decorative copies of sculpture. I accept the article isn't really written that way, but it can be so taken. We don't cover the decorative arts, or copies of art, at all well, & while general articles like Replicas of Michelangelo's David or Replicas of the Statue of Liberty are ideal, articles on specific copies can still serve a useful encyclopedic purpose. We are unlikely to see a flood of these articles from outside Indianapolis. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, even assuming that were so, this isn't the article to do it with; such an article would at most mention a copy among the List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, the Louvre, the Victoria and Albert museum, the fine collection of plaster casts at the Fitzwilliam museum, etc, but essentially none of the current text would survive, so this would be a clear case of WP:TNT and start over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly where I disagree. There is a place for detailed accounts of representitive fairly common objects, and exhibition catalogues and for example in A History of the World in 100 Objects about 50% of the objects were essentially representative rather than individually important. We have generally far too many mentions in lists of things with nothing to relate them to. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're surely right about the lists, but that isn't the point here: we can benefit from precise citations and references and photos of specific items, but all that would have nothing to do with the current article, barring perhaps a shared citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you there - references to things in lists are much less use if there is no context anywhere to relate them to, not that this article is good on the context, but it could be made so. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (redirect to list): this is a modern (relatively) mass-produced concrete copy of a classical statue. It might be useful to add to the Diana of Versailles article that copies of it were made in the 20th century for US gardens (a miniature copy on The Titanic gets a mention already), but one individual such copy is not notable. We do not need description of the level of "Her proper left leg is slightly forward and bears her weight as she steps off her right leg, extended a bit behind her on a supportive rise of the base." - David (Michelangelo) scarcely gets such detail: admirable in a museum catalogue but undue detail for an encyclopedia. We do not have, or need, articles on every art work in the gardens of Chatsworth House or the Palace of Versailles, especially if they are not original works. The list at List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art seems admirable and adequate, and I suggest that this title should redirect to that list (until someone needs to use the title for another copy, in which case a dab page can link to that list entry). Pam  D  14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just added List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art as a "See also" link at Oldfields, because there seemed not to be any link from that article to any of these art works in the grounds. Pam  D  14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Thinker in NTHU Taiwan.jpgComment As for multiply- (though not mass-) produced originals, we do have List of Thinker sculptures: well intended, but a ghastly mess. Anyone with time and energy and references to write up me-too statuary could do a lot worse than work on this list-article, which surely has considerable unrealized scholarly potential. (And some comic potential too, I suspect.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC) ... PS We also have the fascinating but dreadfully scrappy "List of statues of Vladimir Lenin" (quotation: The Kremlin Bar, one of the premier Gay Bars in Europe, has a statue of Lenin welcoming partygoers over the main entrance). The student of the generic statue has plenty to do in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources either refer to the original, or are obviously primary. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate to criticise museum websites or catalogues etc as "primary" - there may be an issue over their independence, but they are typically, other than over matters of interpretation, the best & often only source for the basic information over size, materials, provenence etc, and should be regarded as the best source for these for their own objects. Nor do they actually meet the definition (rather an odd one when you examine it closely) at WP:PRIMARY. It would be perverse to prefer the account of an independent art historian of, for example the size or materials of an object over the museum's own account, when there is no way he is allowed to bring his own tape-measure and stepladder into the museum, let alone take samples for analysis. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. We are discussing notability here, not reliability: you are arguing that the museum catalogues c.s. are the most reliable, which may be correct, but that's not the issue here. Primary sources, even very high quality ones, cannot be used to determine notability of subjects. Fram (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, as I said, "primary" is the wrong criticism of the sources - "not independent" would be the correct one. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No one has proven anything close to a notability argument here or elsewhere, and everyone has based their decision entirely on their own subjective decision if this piece is notable to their personal taste. You simply cannot judge artworks by general notability guidelines, because artworks are not general -- they are highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context. These artworks have received comparatively "significant coverage", considering the fact that, unlike every single sporting event that by itself gets significant coverage no matter how significant the event, it has been published in multiple scholarly locations. How is the museum's reference not the definitive reference for this artwork? How is the museum itself not reliable? It is a public charity. There are as many sources for this work as can possibly be acquired for an artwork -- the fact is that many have written about it. But this is not a fact of its significance, but rather a fact of the lack of interest in sources to write about art in today's society. Of course the information is independent of the subject. Take an honest look at these articles. Be deleting them you are basically saying that there is little room for articles about cultural heritage in this Encyclopedia because their is comparatively more interest in other subjects. You simply cannot judge artworks by general notability guidelines, because artworks are not general. Of course, we already know that, but the ones wanting to delete it would be the ones responsible for proving this. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We just don't think it comes near WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are as many sources for this work as can possibly be acquired for an artwork" That's just it, that simply isn't true. For notable works of art, many more sources, and much more clearly independent, can be found. The works will be exhibited outside their home ground, be discussed at length in the exhibition catalogue, be discussed at length in a catalogue raisonnée, monographies, thematic studies, ... Take e.g. The Three Graces (Rubens), currently a rather poor article: but what a wealth of information about this picture is available, how many independent studies and commentaries can be found! Or if you want a more recent example, we don't even have an article yet on Barnett Newman's Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue series, but that's a work of art which has independent sources and easily meets the GNG. Fram (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, works of art "are highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context". First, then, the matter of specificity. To what degree is this a copy? The article says that it is a copy, then describes what it depicts, and then repeats that it's a copy. The article neither qualifies "copy" nor elaborates on the meaning of the word. If the statue is a copy (or to the degree that it is a copy), why isn't the descriptive material -- clad in strappy sandals, a flowing, Doric chiton terminating above her knee, a very short himation, a rounded tiara, and a quiver oriented toward her right shoulder, etc -- instead in the article about the original? Where (or to the degree that) this "copy" is actually not a copy, has anyone remarked on its original touches, on its liveliness, on its humdrumness, or whatever? And if this is a member of the class of "highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context", then can one say anything about the space? As it is, we learn that it hasn't been moved, although the surrounding foliage has changed. Does it look different in this garden in Indianapolis from the way it would look in other gardens that have copies of classical statuary? -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Oldfields or List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. A mass-produced statue of unknown origin? An article on the company or the series would be valuable, but on a single piece of bric a brac? No. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Johnbod that this is useful and notable information in a topic area that we do not cover well.  Another possibility would be to merge with the article on the original - perhaps creating Diana of Versailles.  Either way, as Gamaliel notes, this should be broadened to cover the series of Copies of Diana of Versailles.   –  SJ  +  06:51, 25 March 2013 (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.