Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fountain (Oldfields Estate)


 * 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 | prattle _ 17:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fountain (Oldfields Estate)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular item is a modern mass=produced 19th century garden object. If it is of any particular importance, the article does not indicate so. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy    DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This along with a number of other articles DGG is trying to delete because he does not find them important enough. This is a ridiculous argument.  They are all part of the cultural fabric of the Oldfields Estate, a National Historic Landmark on the grounds of the Indianapolis Museum of Art.  This is a well-researched and accurate article on an important part of this estate.  Deleting this article and the others is highly unproductive and without basis.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of the five references, three are the museum where this fountain is located, the remainder focuses on Oldfields, not on the fountain. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.


 * Delete. Its maker is unknown; so is its significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 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)
 * This is a long-winded, hopefully helpful, polite note to paraphrase the viewpoint that promotes deletion: the particular individual items within the collective cultural fabric of Oldfields are not automatically independently notable. By analogy, not everybody in the US is quite as "encyclopedically notable" as... e.g. George Washington. The position of those editors who are exploring deletion, a position which I am merely paraphrasing (perhaps wrongly to some extent, as hair-splitting can go on down to the minute subatomic level!) to assist you in looking at this matter, is that each article MUST on it's own merits, establish notability (for reference, see WP:GNG). The editors exploring deletion are contending that the article doesn't meet notability (see Huon's explanation) because there are no WP:RS, as defined, within the article in its present form that look to, or substantially discuss, this specific fountain. You MAY hypothetically have several powerful solutions to this: is there, in fact, a WP:RS for the fountain? For example, in the documentation for the National Historic Landmark listing for Oldfields, was this item in some way highlighted or given special mention? What was that, and was it referenced? Can the reference be incorporated here? Or, hypothetically, has the fountain itself specifically been written up or commented upon in a WP:RS? Even if it was a substantial part of a broader review that would help. If there isn't a WP:RS for the specific article topic, it is going to be much tougher to keep it. If that's the case, you may have to consider alternatives: merging to the Oldfield's article, or perhaps going left field and pulling all the articles they are questioning, collating them, and dare I say it publishing it (e.g. Kindle or many, many others)? Wikipedia may be a good venue for this if you have the type of tartly citrus sources that satiate the deletion fetishists' fangs; if not, maybe self-publish electronically? I hope this helps a bit; there's obviously a lot of nice effort gone into these articles so I hope you find a happy home for them, here on Wikipedia if feasible. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources are obviously primary. Being a part of a notable entity means nothing without analysis in secondary sources. User:RichardMcCoy, see WP:PSTS. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Oldfields. Too much puffery here.  Has any source unconnected to the museum or Oldfields ever mentioned this as a significant piece?  In related news, please look forward to my article on the staircase at the Tampa Museum of Art. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 20 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.