Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana with Dog


 * 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 | verbalize _ 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Diana with Dog

 * – ( 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  modern mass-produced copies of a  sculpture. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy    DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This argument for deletion is ridiculous. This is a well-written and well-referenced article about an artwork at a major US Museum that is part of a the historic fabric of a National Historic Landmark. By DGG's same argument, there should be no articles about any MLB player, except the ones that he things are good. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into Oldfields . Of the seven references one is Wikipedia itself, another three are the museum where this statue is located, the remainder focuses on Oldfields, not on this statue. There's no indication it has been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Not every object discussed in publications on Oldfields is independently notable. Huon (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, don't merge this; we already have List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art which holds all relevant information. Huon (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments on Copy of Diana of Versailles which has identical issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 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.
 * I think we're left with WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. "It is likely that Diana with Dog is one copy of a mass-produced form". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: 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)
 * Not absurd at all. The standard that is being applied is not editors' personal opinions, but whether this statue has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources—a standard documented in Wikipedia's notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources are obviously primary. Being a part of a notable entity means nothing without independent secondary sources.  Abductive  (reasoning) 16:20, 19 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, well sourced, seems generally notable as outdoor art. Thought the article should be about all instances of Diana With Dog, if more than one exists -- as per some of the examples (list of X statues) listed in other related AfDs.   I disagree with the nominator's premise - anyone interested in this artwork would be interested in its history and production; no less if there were two or eight copies made than if there was only one.  Copy of Diana of Versailles has to deal with this explicitly.  –  SJ  +  06:46, 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.