Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herald / Harbinger


 * 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 redirect to Brookfield Place (Calgary). There's pretty good consensus here that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but less clarity about how to do that. I'm going to redirect, as a middle-of-the-road, WP:ATD, alternative. If somebody wants to merge material, they can go ahead and do that on their own, keeping in mind that WP:V applies, and providing proper attribution.

If somebody wants to pursue WP:COI issues, there's other fora for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Herald / Harbinger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a public artwork, not reliably sourced to any evidence of its notability. Two of the four "sources" here are the artist's own self-published promotional video about the unveiling of his own work, a third is its directory entry on the self-published website of the property management company that commissioned it, and a fourth is just a photograph of it -- which means zero of them represent reliable source coverage about it. As always, every piece of artwork that exists in the world is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article -- it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. This was also created by an editor with a probable WP:COI, as their only contributions to Wikipedia have all involved this artist and his work. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, in the weak to medium range. This has not been open long, but I found three decent sources on it. I have the sense that we should keep it as it is a permanent installation and will likely generate more sources, given those already published during its short tenure. I know, not a perfect argument, but I have a sense. And the new sources I added are not terrible. Article does need cleanup, and I did notice a COI tag. Despite that, the work seems notable, in the weak to medium range. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: the Tourism and Heritage Journal devotes 904 words to the piece, in the article linked here. Along with the three independent RS of middling quality that I added, I think this is a clearer keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with [[Ben Rubin (artist) - The scholarly journal essay mentioned above was the tipping point, as the artwork has received news and critical attention, and is also the subject of an in-depth analysis. It is true that the article was created by an SPA with a definite COI, which is problematic. However, the work has cultural merit, and is a permanent work of public art. I found another source from the Center for Data Art, but because it was written by the article creator (the SPA/COI), I did not add it to the article. It's a shaky keep, but a keep nevertheless. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The apparent conflict of interest by is troubling. A clarification would be most welcome. Then again, a conflict of interest by the creator of the article is not a reason for deletion. I think it's too soon to have an article about an artwork when it is not clear that significant coverage is sustained over a longer period of time. I see no evidence that the work has had a significant impact, has been cited as particularly influential or innovative. The reporting is too much of a single event.  If it had been a work by a single artist, I would have suggested to merge it into an existing article, but there is no suitable target. I see no alternatives to deletion. Vexations (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and Question I'm just popping in to this, and I'm confused as to what is the history here. Specifically, why did create a new page, and request the deletion of the old page, rather than just rename. On some level that is not material here, as it relates to a different page, but at the same time it does, as it is part of questions about COI. I really would like to be able to see what the original Rubin page looked like prior to its deletion, and the loss of that history is exactly why it shouldn't have been deleted, but rather renamed (e.g. moved). That said, it seems like the Rubin page is pretty small, and is missing any discussion of Works which seems to me that an article of this length actually deserves to be placed there, rather than in its own page. If any of his works deserves its own page, it is Listening Post (Artwork). [], [], [], [] etc. --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not so worried abotu the COI as they (Rubin, Thorp, the artwork, and also Listening Post) are all notable to a degree. I've created Listening Post (artwork). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am slightly worried that the user has ignored COI queries on their usertalk page. Surely editors are expected to respond to such queries. In other news, the cut and paste move is fixed and the history merged. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Brookfield Place (Calgary). I'm not convinced that the artwork itself satisfies WP:SIGCOV, but the sources that User:ThatMontrealIP found do verify the content enough to include this content in the article on the building itself. Really this is the best place for it anyway as the art instalation is a part of this building. This should also alleviate concerns over any COI issues.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge the verifiable contents into Brookfield Place (Calgary). Not seeing anything that establishes independent notability of this artwork. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:33, 23 October 2019 (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.