Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 100 most significant artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art


 * 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. And rename / rewrite to remove the WP:OR assertion that these are the most significant works.  Sandstein  07:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

List of 100 most significant artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research. Could be stripped of the assertion that these works are of especial significance and merged into Indianapolis Museum of Art, I suppose. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – List contains several items that are notable by themselves (have articles). Too large to merge into main article. Also see List of works in Museum of Modern Art Department of Painting and Sculpture. Could be renamed to remove artificial limit of one hundred. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete- inherently OR. Reyk  YO!  01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - List is based on accurate sources. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename List of works in the Indianapolis Museum of Art to get rid of self-admitted WP:SYNTHESIS. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and rewrite removing the unjustified "most significant" bit, and probably the artificial limit of 100 - several of the works are clearly intended to be representative rather than of special individual significance. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnbod and Clarityfiend, please explain why this is unjustified and define how this could be justified to meet a standard. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the article itself, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS combination of works selected in various museum publications over the years, few presumably with the specific phrase "most significant" attached. Such lists always have problems - if they are using a single list produced by the museum they are a breach of compilation copyright. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - rename Collection highlights of the Indianapolis Museum of Art ...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I would ideally love to see such a list for each and every museum institution on Wikipedia. A museum is by definition the best source of information on its own collection, and if they have a list, well, I for one want to see it. Most institutions are not able to produce such a list so I am impressed they have one. Jane (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't - its a synthesis of various selections of highlights. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying this is a synthesis of 100 highlights from all of the published set of highlights by the museum, yet you are denying that this also would be the 100 most significant pieces. How else could such a list be made here? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably can't be, with such a claim in the title. Highlights by no means always, or usually = "most significant" pieces. See A History of the World in 100 Objects, which has 100 objects from the British Museum, but certainly not all the "most significant" as objects.  Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you fighting Johnbod (who wants to keep the list)? The part that is unacceptable is an editor devising his own criteria. If we let that pass, it would open the floodgates to things like Clarityfiend's list of the greatest films of all time. Strip away the artificial limits of 100 and "most significant" (the latter is implicit anyway) and the list is fine (just like List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not fighting anyone or anything. I've asked for an explanation of an opinion.  To your point, if "Carityfiend" was one of the largest film museums in the U.S., published two highlights books about its movies and had its curators select the most significant movies from its collection to put on its website, I should think a List of 100 Most Significant Movies at Clarityfiend would be a rather straightforward thing to produce. Why wouldn't Clarityfiend be able to judge its most significant movies? It seems to me there is a lack of common sense being applied here and folks are over thinking this one.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is nowhere said, never mind referenced, that the museum has described them as the "100 most significant artworks". This is not a difficult point. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I give up. Funny that you are fighting your own words here. If there is a measurable difference between the definition of highlight and a the definition of a significant work, you've got me by the sneakers. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename and rewrite the intro paragraph to get rid of the obvious synthesis going on. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * rename as list of artworks in Indianapolis Museum of Art or list of notable artworks in Indianapolis Museum of Art - locations of works of art in various institutions round the world in inherently encyclopedic. Agree that the 100 number is arbitrary and represents OR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 April 2012 (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.