Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It is only a statue and must be deleted in accordance with WP:N No reliable resources to justify notability and Fails WP:N Burhan Ahmed  (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if being "only a statue" is a reason for deletion, I suppose we must also delete Christ the Redeemer (statue), Great Sphinx of Giza, The Thinker, David (Michelangelo) and Statue of Liberty... or are you arguing that this statue in particular is not notable? Your nomination statement is unclear. Somno (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your nomination statement makes more sense now. Thanks for fixing it. Somno (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found few references to this statue on Google; enough to verify it exists but no reliable secondary sources which would satisfy notability requirements. Reyk  YO!  10:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a statue by a notable sculptor depicting a notable figure displayed on a notable location. You can't get more notable than that. Your search for sources is likely muddled by a language barrier and the fact the sculptor is pre-internet age. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- I searched for this statue under its English name, its French name and every combination of the words "Democritus" "Delhomme" and "meditating" I could think of, and there's no significant coverage that I can find. I'm surprised; I was expecting this statue to be notable, but the truth is that it doesn't seem to be. As always I'll happily change my mind if any sources turn up but burden of proof is with those arguing to keep. Reyk  YO!  19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All major works of art by etab ihsed artists for which there is sufficient material are individualy notable. The proper place to find the references in not google, but the the various artistic encyclopedias. I am assuming this paticular work is of such stature as to have been written about. DGG (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm thinking historical systemic bias applies here. Further research would need to be done to find the right sources offline, but it can be safely assumed that these do exist. I do lean towards giving more leeway for historical works, as the issues of notability are not as pressing as when dealing with living, breathing and self-promoting artists.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Freshacconci - the sources will certainly exist in print. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or, at the least, merge to artist article. Notability is not temporary - "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic." Clearly at some point it met the notability guideline or it would not have been "exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1868", nor would it have been installed "in the garden of the musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon". It is, as Freshacconci points out, an example of historical systemic bias. Many (if not most) contemporary subjects meeting WP:N through the excess of sources currently available will not in 140 years time have the exposure and attention that this statue does. WP:N was necessary to exclude the abundance of contemporary self-promotion of nonentities, and historical trivia such as family genealogy. That a work such as this should be even considered for deletion shows not where the subject fails WP:N, but where WP:N is flawed, because it was not conceived with these situations as its target. There has to be a sensible application, not one by rote.  Ty  01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, it may need a rename though. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (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.