Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Rainier


 * 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. The clear consensus, in addition to the nomination being withdrawn. Star  Mississippi  20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Lady Rainier

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The sources are three articles in the same local newspaper, a blog posting from a columnist for that same newspaper, and a listicle from a local business's blog. I did some searching on my own and didn't come up with anything better. This was discussed at WT:DYK for a while; a few more sources were found, but just passing mentions that didn't contribute to satisfying WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep there is nothing wrong with Seattle Times nor the fact that the three articles are published in the same paper, unless you have a specific concern that all three distinct authors are not independent from each other and or the subject of article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the Seattle Times per-se, other than that it's local coverage. But more importantly, it's all the same source.  Quoting from WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand "series" here to be the decisive factor, for example if one newspaper is covering an ongoing story, and different authors contribute different pieces for example about a murder trial, it's likely that the same editor is supervising/commissioning the series, but I am not seeing that here. I'll stop commenting and let others opine here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where's the geographic diversity of sources guideline? Haven't been able to find it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Shushugah that separate coverage in the same periodical does not constitute a series as mentioned in WP:GNG. Some of your concern re: sources is valid to me, but I think that Template:More citations needed added to the top would be more appropriate than deleting the article because of it. DJ Cane (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep We have enough to establish notability for this sculpture. The sculpture has a 120 year history which is documented in the Seattle times and in books. In our notability guidelines there is not requirement that the WP:RS be international or national; only that it is reliable. The sculpture appears in books and newsprint throughout the 120 years history of its existence. The sources in the article are non-trivial secondary sources discussing the sculpture. I submit that the sculpture passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources  independent of the subject. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep our GNG. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the three main sources are from the same newspaper but given that it’s a reliable secondary source, that’s not a problem. Those sources establish GNG.  Schwede 66  16:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. I disagree with people's judgement here about the quality of the sources, but it's obvious I'm in the minority, so withdrawing this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. per the sources in the article PeterHaris (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC) User has been WP:CUBLOCKed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: It seems to me that, , and are mistaken –  used the wrong quote, though. He takes his statement from an explanatory footnote, but right there in the guideline prose, it says Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nothin' about needing to be a series in there. Combined with the fact that it's local coverage, and therefore is predisposed to take more notice than would probably otherwise be due, I can't really establish a GNG pass. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We could argue about the role of a footnote in determining source use all day, but also note the additional sources Bruxton brought up that show that the statue makes significant appearances in other reliable sources as well, adding to my idea that we should apply Template:More citations needed rather than delete as the Seattle Times articles (in my opinion on their own) plus Bruxton’s sources satisfy WP:GNG. DJ Cane (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The links are, respectively, a passing mention and another Seattle Times article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, WP:GNG mentions five criteria: To have significant coverage (doesn’t say how many sources need to offer this) from a reliable (Seattle Times qualifies for sure), secondary source (Seattle Times plus the book), that is independent of the subject (also met). The fifth is that the presence of these four provides a presumption that the topic discussed in the article is notable though that it could certainly be debated. What I mean to say is that Bruxton’s additional sources show that there are more out there beyond the Seattle Times. While I’m not in a position to do this, I think it’s a safe bet to say that if someone looked deeply in libraries in the Puget Sound Region they would find additional books at least lightly discussing this topic, not to mention what may also be online. For me, this meets the presumption as described in WP:GNG. Of course the vast majority of coverage of a statue (with few exceptions) is going to be local, that doesn’t make it not notable, neither does a source section that leaves some to be desired. DJ Cane (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG also says, in its fourth criterion, that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. To count for GNG, each qualifying source needs to give significant coverage (there are exceptions, and I don't believe this is one of them). A passing mention doesn't count. If there's SIGCOV out there, I'd be happy to assess, but speculation a GNG pass does not make. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Leeky, you're forgetting this is AfD. Speculation about the possible existence of sources is how the game is played, despite WP:SOURCESEXIST being a WP:ATA. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand behind my argument as being evidence based. DJ Cane (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we speedy close already, since nominator has withdrawn? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know. After reading @DJ Cane's argument, I'm thinking of withdrawing my withdrawal.  It'll be amusing to see what else people come up with. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith Can this be closed now? I see your doubtfulness in withdrawing, but seven (6.5) days after the start of this discussion, I see seven Keep votes with only one Delete vote. Also pinging theleekycauldron in case you have anything to say. Timothytyy (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want. Folks here seem to have a deep misunderstanding of what WP:SIGCOV means, but I'm not going to fix that by arguing here, so whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal only works if no one has !voted to delete, which I have. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNC, and per discussion and the statues staying power (exhibited since 1903). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion. It's an art of work publicly exhibited in a major city for over 100 years. There are multiple secondary sources in a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2023 (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.