Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public art in Washington, D.C.


 * 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. Though the debate has not been open long, there's not a snowball's chance that the outcome will now be "delete". Bold NAC by— S Marshall T/C 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)'''

List of public art in Washington, D.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very little content, and is any of it notable? I would speedy this, but I'm not sure if it is a valid topic for speedy. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Hi there. I'm quite surprised to see this. This is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art, and if public art - such as the Washington Monument and the Albert Einstein Memorial are not notable, than all public art lists should be deleted, such as: List of public art in London or Outdoor sculpture in New York City. There is sourcing on each page, and the basis for this list is from the Smithsonian's SIRIS database, and keep in mind, this is a skeleton to be built upon. Thanks for the consideration. Missvain (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  -- UtherSRG (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing wrong with this as a topic for a list. I'm sure the individual artworks have been covered in the media or guidebooks. I don't quite understand the editor's plan.  Why not just list them by alphabet and give Google-map locations for each? Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definable scope, clear selection criteria. Not every item on a list is required to be notable, merely clearly and unambiguously within the selection criteria.  See WP:LIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Borderline WP:Almanac, but it's done quite well, although I do have some concerns about ongoing maintenance. A close case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to being clearly within the scope of Wikipedia Saves Public Art, this list also falls under all three categories for the Purposes of lists: Information, Navigation and Development. Wikipedia should be a place that users can come and find information on a public artwork that they've come across, one that very often may not have a label or name. Lists are a great way to find that information. Especially if they know little about the work (usually just the location), they can easily navigate a list in order to find the work. The list also is helpful in development, as it includes red links illustrating articles which need to be created. Until they're created, the list should remain in mainspace so that others can see a comprehensive list of all of the public art in DC. HstryQT (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Very puzzling. It appears as if UtherSRG didn't even bother looking at what this list is before suggesting it be deleted.  Questioning this list with unsubstantiated claims is at minimum unproductive. Also, I don't understand the maintenance claims made by Shadowjams.  This list seems to be ideally suited and constructed for the topic. --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and, perhaps, trim down to just 8 internal links with no filling. But, given that wards of DC have no articles about them, some explanation is OK. East of Borschov (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful and well-constructed list. Needs to be wikified for individual articles. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. You do know we have a GLAM push on, right? And that we're an encyclopedia, and cover this sort of thing as part of what we do? I don't question your good faith, but that you would actually consider this speedy material means that I do have to seriously question your judgement on this one - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to Assume good faith on this one. The page currently has no immediately visible clues that it has to do with GLAM; this could be rectified. (see below) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. But I think it's also glaring evidence that UtherSRG has been doing patrol too long and is getting burnt out. It's a prima facie case of complete judgement failure - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, obviously (It drills down to very detailed, very notable sublists). This is a typical problem with WP content split over multiple wikipages. Best duck-tape deletion-prevention solution is to add some kind of wikiproject template, so people see that it belongs somewhere. The belonging isn't entirely obvious from the page itself; I can see how UthurSRG might have failed to figure out how the page was organised whilst on patrol. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I think maybe the nominator didn't realise that the article was actually listing sub-articles where the main body of the work is being collated and that this article is created to make the sub-lists a more managable size. This might explain the "very little content" description. Witty Lama 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The list is not a list of "Public art," but of the neighborhoods contained in each ward. Then when you click on the Ward, it takes you to a list of random art works, 95% of which are redlinks and probably nonnotable. There would be a place in Wikipedia for one list of the notable (non-redlink) public art in the city. Organization by Ward is very strange. That is a local political boundary system quite unknown to the tourist or artlover, and there is nothing special about "1st Ward Art" versus "2nd Ward Art." Edison (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, but merge from the sublists. The overall notability of the topic is evident—the success of the Wikipedia Saves Public Art venture is undisputed, and this is clearly in that vein—but the content of the article per se (as it stands) doesn't seem to justify the importance of the topic: it doesn't contain any of the relevant information! {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits&#124;⚡}&#125; 18:37, 1 June 2010 (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.