Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield Industrial Dog Object


 * 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 that with new sources, the subjects passes the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fairfield Industrial Dog Object

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. one gnews hit doesn't cut it. . LibStar (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP. A story listing in the Google News category decides Notability at Wikipedia? In a *general* Google search (and Bing as well), there are NUMEROUS hits for "Fairfield Industrial Dog Object". It's a well known piece of public art. It's had a Wikipedia article since 2008. Why be so quick to delete? Hard drives filling up? Keep, no reason to delete. Be an "Inclusionist" not a "Deletionist"! =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:NOHARM are not reasons for keeping. coverage must be in reliable sources which you have failed to provide. how long it has been on wikipedia is irrelevant. i've seen articles deleted from 2005 and 2006. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*Delete: I didn't find anything of significance, and besides the source here, there really isn't coverage in reliable sources. I have to change my vote to keep. The improvements mean there are a bunch of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, BUT keep content and move to Fairfield, Victoria or to the article on the railway station on whose land it exists (Love it, though) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Public art is notable.  Significant coverage is likely to be able to be found if you look hard enough - and a google search isn't looking very hard at all. Libstar, how many times must we tell you that google searches for things from the late 1990s and early 2000s (especially Australian) are not covered adequately on google news? Remember it says that WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a reason for deletion either.   The statue was erected in 2000, so it would make sense that significant coverage would have happened then.  As an example,  dominated the Australian Football League that year, so why are their only 2 GNews hits from 2000 about Essendon AFL?  Please stop trying to delete things based solely on google hits.The-Pope (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * public art is not inherently notable, otherwise every public statue, mural etc in the world gets a WP article. You have failed to provide any sources to demonstrate WP:GNG is met. You use a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. The onus is on those voting keep to show evidence of significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * to keep the pope satisfied, just 3 small mentions in trove, nothing in news.com.au . LibStar (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you also stop with WP:CAPITALLETTERS to essays? Google hit counts are not a reason for deletion.  There are sources in the article, and I have shown that google coverage of the time is poor, Trove is even worse for >1956 stuff, no idea about a google/news for that time so it is still fair to assume that there are probably more from the time that it was created.  If there were no sources at all in the article, I'd agree with you, but there are some. Do you really want this site to only cover things for pre-1950 and post 2005? The-Pope (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your evidence of significant indepth coverage. there are plenty of WP articles from 1950 to 2005. Lack of coverage is a reason for deletion as evidenced in my various searches. please accept consensus to delete. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * it also gets 2 gbooks hits . both from Books LLC which use Wikipedia as a source. so not even covered in major books. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Public art is not inherently notable. If this article is deleted and significant coverage is found later on, the article can be recreated. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did some digging, which was a lot of fun, and found a number of sources. It was a tad tricky, though - Google News stops a bit too early where Australian media is concerned, but some of the other media databases encompass the 1999-2001 period better. A number of sources only have a trivial mention or are local, although they're useful to verify claims, but some count towards notability. The main reason for the media coverage was that it proved to be a controversial work: there was a reasonable amount of discussion around the time it was built due to community concerns, and that has turned up a few times after it was unveiled. I really liked the bit when the "Revolutionary Council for the Removal of Bad Art in Public Places" became involved. Anyway, I've added what I could today, and there is likely to be a bit more from other sources contemporary to the work, but I think it should be ok now. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient RS for notability in my opinion. --99of9 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * please explain which sources you are referring to. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * These. Secondly, I'm confident that Google News is an inadequate search for this period, and despite your debunking "misconceptions" on your userpage, you do not appear to have investigated thoroughly. There are very clear gaps in coverage: .  So for an object as prominent as this, I'm confident that more sources from the time of construction would be found if a comprehensive search was done. --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this piece of public art is notable (with even someone in far off WA is aware of it). Interesting enough if you search Trove properly you can find that there was a short film made on the subject
 * Keep - Public art- per se - in most cases in Australia happens to be notable - otherwise why the lists? I see no attempts at Afd'ing the lists - the argument to assume the sublimation of other items - viz the claim otherwise every public statue, mural etc in the world gets a WP article is a false extension of the keeping of this article - public art is one thing (it has a WP project) - murals, and other things are not assumed to have anything like the issues that arise from this particular item. Also the comments by The Pope although answered back to - are well worth noting SatuSuro 04:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent expansion and sourcing by Bilby. Has multiple articles in The Age, the Herald Sun, Artlink Magazine and some local papers. Meets the general notability guideline in my book. Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the improvements to the article have done the job - notability has been well demonstrated. It's quite nicely written as well, imho. Colon el  Tom 03:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - just passes the WP:GNG, but passes it does, after its improvements. It could be argued, "It's ludicrous! It's a  a publicly-funded folly!  It's a silly waste of rate-payers' money!" Those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2011 (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.