Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedimental sculptures in Canada


 * 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. Keep base votes and keep comments. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above non-administrator close was vacated by me in my individual capacity, supported by the snowball consensus forming at Deletion review/Log/2021 September 21. This discussion should be considered as closed as no consensus to delete, with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination, due to the procedural irregularities within the original AfD (as described at the DRV). While I would normally consider relisting in this situation, to try and form a consensus either way, the nature of this debate means that allowing any interested editor to re-nominate as soon as they desire, may be more conducive to achieving a consensus either to 'keep' or 'delete'. If this article is re-nominated, I strongly encourage that neutral notices be placed in high-visibility areas to attract participation from Wikipedians who were not involved in the original discussion, to further the likelihood of a consensus forming. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pedimental sculptures in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The topic of this list doesn't seem to have been the topic of attention in reliable sources as a group. If no one outside Wikipedia has been interested enough in pedimental sculptures in Canada to write at some length about it, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Many of these aren't individually notable either (e.g. or  or many others), making this a novel grouping of non notable features  of notable buildings. We wouldn't (I hope) make similar list for e.g. "Buildings using the Corinthian order in Canada" or "Domed buildings of Canada", there is no reason to treat these differently. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure this is notable, it reads more like a list than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well constructed article ("list" if you prefer) with a lot of detailed information in it that some folks have spent a lot of time and effort on.  Architectural sculpture is a niche study with quite a few adherents and we are frequently looking for this sort of list. Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page. Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Also when you nominate something for deletion you should put a link to here on the article's talk page." That's news to me. There is a massive link at the article page, there is no need to add another link at the talk page (where your comments are borderline canvassing though). None of your keep arguments are really relevant, articles are not kept or deleted because they are well organised or not, or because they are the work of one person or of a group of people. Fram (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I missed you link on the article page. The other part has to do with respect for the effort that other serious, long time editors have put into this article.  That might not be covered in any policy but should (opinion) always be taken into account by fellow editors. Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this argument falls into WP:HARDWORK. We should really be addressing the relevant guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment hello -- could you please link the policy behind your main argument, that the scope of any wikipedia article must reflect the scope of an article found in a reliable source?   I've looked and cannot find.  thank you  --Lockley (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The very start of WP:GNG? "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when [...] significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Because no sources address the article topic directly, the writers need to make a WP:SYNTH creation. Fram (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In good faith I'm trying to see your reasoning. Coupla issues with my article, sure, but specifically about your challenge of the scope of the article because there is no precedent for it.  I understand how the very start of GNG relates to articles about simple nouns, people places & things.  I do not understand how it relates to articles with a wider scope than that -- summaries and lists such as this one.  For instance let's take Inauguration of the Dutch monarch.  Is that article toast if we can't point to a reliable outside source with that same exact scope?  If that source is silent on the medals involved, would we have to delete the medals section?  That article links to a historical summary article called Coronations in antiquity, whose scope doesn't seem to be reflected in any outside source that I could spot.  By your logic, would we properly delete that one too?  --Lockley (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Lockley - the guidelines we need to look at are WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Unless there are sources discussing this topic as a group (as oppose to the individual items within the list) then I don't believe it meets the guidelines and falls into WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. A pedimental sculpture is a thing, and Wikipedia can have an article on the topic.  Which can include a worldwide list of notable examples, or the worldwide list can be split out into one or more list-articles, e.g. one for US, one for Canada, etc.  But there does not have to be a separate article on the topic, and the worldwide list can be titled "Pedimental sculptures" or "List of pedimental sculptures" and focus more on the list of examples than upon narrow definition of the topic and narrow coverage from, say, some textbook or manual on how to design an impressive building such as a courthouse. Note: Not every pedimental sculpture in Canada would be listed; list-item-notability standards are up to the editors at an article.  But editors of Pedimental sculptures in the United States (including me) worked out a standard that includes the nationally significant figurative sculptures in pediments of the U.S. Supreme Court building, etc., and that excludes local, residential or commercial ones which are simply laurels and flowers and scrolls and appear to be non-original.--Doncram (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of the sculptures in the list under discussion is "nationally significant" (the sculpture, not the building!). Fram (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW User:Lockley's very first version of this list-article was already impressive (thank you, Lockley!), and BoringHistoryGuy has further developed it. --Doncram (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, a new and already fine page, and objections have been explained well by the editors working on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: A domed building is a thing, too, and there certainly can be a list-article of notable examples world-wide. Should it be List of domes or List of domed buildings? --Doncram (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)  P.S. Oh, there is a worldwide list already, with France and some other areas broken out.  Domes in Canada (currently a redlink), could be redirected to a Canada section in worldwide List of domes, or created as a separate article. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to meet GNG - though could do with some more, independent, references. Nfitz (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How does this meet GNG? I don't see any sources in the article about "Pedimental sculptures in Canada", and most of the sources are extremely passing mentions of the pediment (often not even mentioning the sculpture) or don't mention the pediment at all. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most, sure - not surprising out there. But there are some more detailed GNG sources out there like this. Nfitz (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article fails WP:LISTN and seems to be the result of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources used in the article discuss pedimental sculptures in Canada as a group and a quick WP:BEFORE does not reveal any sources. While the sourcing is ok for the most part for the sculptures in the list, WP:LISTN is clear that these should be discussed as a group otherwise this is just WP:OR. I would urge the above editors to review the list notability guidelines and revise their votes - arguments above seem to just be WP:WHATABOUT rather than providing sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's just wrong. Pedimental sculptures (not specific to Canada I think) are discussed in sources such as Webb and Matlack (cited in both U.S. and Canada list-articles):
 * Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," The Architectural Forum, July 1925, Volume XLIII, Number 1, pp. 1.
 * Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1996 pp.23-25
 * So a list of notable examples is acceptable. And it is fine to split Canada out of a world-wide list, or for it to exist in advance of a truly comprehensive worldwide list being created.  We don't need separate sources reviewing pedimental sculptures of Canada alone.  Just like there are 1,000 or so list-articles of places listed on the U.S. National Register, broken out mostly by county; we don't need or want separate sources discussing each subcollection. --Doncram (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither source give any reference to pedimental sculptures in Canada and it is wrong to use them to justify this article's notability. See below:
 * Price, Matlack, "The Problem of the Pediment," - This makes no mention at all of Canadian architecture/sculpture or Canada more widely. Some American examples are given in this (obscure) article though. It's open access so editors can check for themselves.
 * Webb, Pamela A., Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands - Unless I am mistaken, Western Anatolia and the Argean Islands are not part of Canada. I cannot find any references to Canada or Canadian architecture/sculpture in the book with a search (see here). So I think looking at the topic of the book and the search results I can safely say that this source in no way talks about pedimental sculptures in Canada.
 * Of course these sources are fine to give background in the context of an already notable subject. But no sources that I can find talk about this as a group and without this it is just not notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Too bad that not one of the examples so far is actually notable of course. The buildings are, but the pedimental sculptures get at best a passing mention, that's it. You'll probably be able to find one or two which have received attention. Wikipedia isn't the place to create a "truly comprehensive worldwide list" of non notable individual features of buildings. Comprehensive lists are good for topics where most entries are individually notable, or where the group (not the concept, the group) is notable. A chonological list of people who held a certain notable function will often include both notable and non-notable people, fine. But a list of non-notable examples (the article here) of a group which hasn't received attention as a group subject (pedimental sculptures in Canada) either, on the basis that an even less restrictive topic (pedimental sculptures) is notable, is stretching the limits of spinoff far beyond what WP:NOTINHERITED allows. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note some recent activity by Doncram come very close to inappropriate canvassing in my opinion. In the interests of transparency and for noting by the closer I have included this message here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not surprised by this from Doncram, I have to say. This is blatant canvassing (and at a project which is hardly relevant here). Of course, Doncram was first canvassed (together with some others like Randy Kryn) by BoringHistoryGuy, so this AfD is rather lopsided now. Fram (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Fram and others, there isn't sufficient evidence that pedimental sculpture is a notable grouping at all (pedimental sculpture is a redlink), let alone within Canada specifically. I'm far from an expert in this topic but I was not able to locate a single example of an individually specifically notable pedimental sculpture in Canada (meaning that the sculpture itself is notable, not just that it's on a notable building). The closest I came was this writeup on architectural features of the Manitoba Legislative Building, but the writeup (and our article) treat these appropriately as elements of the notable building, not notable artistic elements in and of themselves. Rather than being a selective list of notable topics, this is an indiscriminate list of features selected by its curator, very few of which have any information about them on Wikipedia at all - only five of the 26 entries in the list even have the artist noted. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - mostly per who quite rightly points out that WP:LISTN is the appropriate standard here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". I can't find anything approaching a reliable source that gives significant coverage to this grouping of things, as a grouping, as defined by the article. I could accept an argument that a comprehensive article at Pedimental sculpture would be justification for splitting "examples" out into lists, and that "examples by country" would be a logical grouping thereafter. And on that basis, I'd be fine with an effort to rename this list to that title (combined with Pedimental sculptures in the United States) so that an article can be developed there. Even a combined Pedimental sculpture in North America, if this concept has strong cultural ties to the continent generally (again, in reliable sources). Otherwise, these seem like lists looking for an parent article.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose the next thing to do is to start a Pediment sculpture or Pedimental sculpture]] article so that Canada can be a spinoff from that. Carptrash (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nom has invented a policy to argue for deletion.  Specifically it's an argument that goes "Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to make a certain grouping of subjects" and demands a source for the scope of the article as a whole, to prove its overall notability with outside coverage.  That language appears nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:LISTN.  In fact the latter directly contradicts that:  "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists."  The nom's AfD argument is not supported by policy.


 * I get it, there's a big valid issue about how to make sure the scope of list articles and summary articles is appropriate for wikipedia. But this pretended policy that demands a cited precedent for any grouping is a terrible idea for wikipedia for 4 or 5 practical & philosophical reasons.  I'm happy it's not real.


 * The nom has asserted this non-existent policy before, in this similar AfD about a year ago, giving this reason for deletion: "the [subject] has not been a separate subject of reliable sources, and is as such a random choice (a random intersection of characteristics) for an article."  That caused a long tangled discussion.  The AfD nomination is itself illogical -- "unverifiable" is way different than "random".  The closest actual policy the deletion advocates could site was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which does not apply to that article or this article.  Finally the nom couldn't the position and the AfD was eventually withdrawn.  This one should be too.


 * As to my article, I'd prefer to keep it. Notability is only valid issue I see.  I believe it passes WP:LISTN in letter and spirit, because that bit of shiny doctrine reads "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been".  These pediment carvings are a subset of public art, which is widely covered & recognized as a valid encyclopedia topic.  Is it true that pedimental sculpture doesn't exist?  Could we do a better job explaining why pedimental sculptures are significant, expensive, complicated, worth attention as public art and fine art?  Does public art have patchy coverage overall in wikipedia?  Is wikipedia incomplete?  Yes to all those questions.  Those are arguments to keep.  --Lockley (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is quite inaccurate and inappropriate to say the nom invented a policy. In your !vote you have quoted the aspect of the guidelines that we cannot get around: " only that the grouping or set in general has been". Until keep voters provide some sources that treat this topic as a group, it just patently fails on this count. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather invite all voters to look at the two paragraphs in Notability to decide for themselves. It's eight sentences.  It says stand-alone list articles must be notable.  Sure.  And one way to prove notability is to point to an independent reliable source for such a grouping.  The second para begins, "There is no present consensus for.. what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists."  This AfD is fundamentally out of whack with that wording because it INSISTS on a citation as the only thing that can establish notability.  --Lockley (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Another sentence in that guideline paragraph states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." That recognized exception should be the gold standard to save this well-written, inclusive, and informative page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that this list does not fulfil any of these purposes - especially given the number of "unknown" "tbd" and red-linked entries and the single similarly-tiled article (see Stalwart111's comments). Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it fulfills all of them. So we can maybe agree to good faith disagree. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - The existence of parallel articles, such as Pedimental sculptures in the United States shows that the article's scope is routinely acceptable, and the article itself is not flawed in any policy-related way which justifies deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this argument comes down to WP:WHATABOUT. The relevant policy is WP:LISTN or at least WP:GNG which no keep voters seem to address. We could justify a "Pedimental sculptures in..." article for every country using this logic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I found that article too (and referenced it above). The issue is that it is the only other such article. Routinely acceptable? I'm not sure one single example establishes a routine. In fact, it's not even accurate to pluralise "parallel articles" as there is only one.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: But I don't think we should follow @Vlad's argument for every country, as I dare say there might well be some countries that do not have any pedimental sculptures to speak of. The article reflects the strong contribution made by Canada, which was accomplished without looting other countries, as happened with the Elgin Marbles! Leutha (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Leutha - can you point to any sources discussing the strong contribution made by Canada to pedimental sculpture? I can't seem to find any. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your diligence in searching for such references. However contributions to a discussion like this do not require the provision of references as this not a wikipedia article, so you will no doubt understand if I do not join you in your endeavours.Leutha (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By "strong contribution" I suspect that Leutha means the number of these pediments found, though once we get going on Australia we will know for sure. France & Great Britain might even outscore the US, much less Canada. Carptrash (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of these pediments maybe impressive, but the strength of the contribution is also shown by the nature of the associated buildings. It may well turn out that Paris alone outstrips the Anglophone contributions. I look forward to seeing these pages.Leutha (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'm pretty sure you are not going to see Paris or London, at least from me, until this mess is decided. Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite all the "keep" votes (some reasonably formulated, some needlessly confrontational, some canvassed), we still have the same situation:
 * This is a non-notable grouping of non-notable sculptures
 * WP:GNG makes it clear that list topics need to have the same notability as other articles
 * WP:LISTN is slightly more "yes but no but yes", but starts with the same notability requirement and ends with "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." No arguments have been proposed why this list would be an exception to that rule
 * All keep arguments seem to boil down to "I like it", "otherstuffexists", and "it isn't 100% explicitly prohibited completely at every junction".
 * It would be a lot better if an article was created about an actually notable topic, Neoclassical architecture in Canada, where many of these buildings would make fine examples, and where different aspects of neoclassical architecture, like pediments and their sculptures, can briefly be discussed. That would be a notable, helpful, acceptable article. This list though belongs on Fandom or similar sites. Fram (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article fulfills all three of WP:LISTPURP, which is linked in WP:LISTN's criteria "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The page fits the Information criteria: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists", the Navigation criteria: "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia", and the Development criteria: "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written." These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question (which has been undergoing improvement since this AfD started and has taken its place, for readers interested in art and sculpture, as one of the major Canadian art pages), shows that Keep points of reasoning go far beyond "I like it". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is "one of the major Canadian art pages", then that's a very bleak picture of the other articles on Canadian art. This list doesn't serve a navigational purpose, i doesn't link different articles on pedimental sculptures, it links articles on buildings based on a non-notable element in them. Navigation based on non-defining elements is not what navigational lists should be used for. I have no idea what "development purpose" the list serves either, a list of non-notable elements will not lead to articles. Which leaves you only with "informational", which is a truism. A list which isn't informational is just gibberish. Furthermore, WP:LISTPURP is part of the manual of style, not a policy or guideline on notability and what is or isn't acceptable as an article topic on enwiki. Fram (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I say it fits all three of the asked for criteria and you say it doesn't fit any we obviously have different points of view. Would like to point out that some of the most renowned pediments in North America don't have separate pages (pediments on the U.S. Supreme Court Building, the U.S. Capitol Building, and on the Jefferson Memorial come to mind), so the future is bright for editors who want to work on Wikipedia pediment pages, and both the U.S. and Canadian pediment lists provide plenty of opportunities and ideas to work on - a purpose which fulfills the criteria described above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without evidence that some of these pediments are in itself notable, no, nothing in this list provides any opportunity. That entries on a different list which isn't up for deletion here may or may not be notable in themselves is of no interest here. As there is no actual evidence for your many claims, they should be dismissed out of hand. Fram (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While you say my accurately-quoting-from-guidelines claims "should be dismissed out of hand" I say they should be given a hand, maybe by this guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly valid, notable subject for a WP article.14GTR (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that you quote from a manual of style, not a notability guideline: it isn't enough to quote them, what you need to show is how they apply to the article at AfD. Something like "These criteria, met and enhanced by the page in question" may sound clever, but is in fact empty (how does an article "enhance" these criteria?), and doesn't address any of the objections. Fram (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this list/article. That individual items may or may not be notable is not an argument for deletion; most of the buildings will be, and many of their articles will cover this sculpture. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on the arguments above by, and others. This list is a useful addition for the encyclopedia's readership. If this article is not kept,  has made a very good suggestion to create an article on Neoclassical architecture in Canada and this list can be a subsection of that. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - an even better alternative: has created a Pedimental sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The buildings of which the sculptures are a part are notable, most of them anyway, but the sculptures in their pediments are not notable by themselves.  This list is too "niche".  I can't even find a list of sculptures in Canada (although we do have Category:Sculptures in Canada) so why should the subset of Pedimental sculptures be listed in this way?   PK  T (alk)  16:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Stalwart111 said, "these seem like lists looking for a parent article." I can imagine breaking these out of an article on Pedimental sculpture once it became unwieldy, but that article doesn't exist, and there's no evidence that Canada has a unique or notable tradition of pedimental sculpture. pburka (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would like to see the body of the article expanded with more detail about sculptures that are of special cultural or artistic importance. The list section works well. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - for all of the keep !votes here, we really haven't seen any policy-based reasoning and most of them boil down to "it's nice", "it's useful", or "it's interesting". Those things can all absolutely be true but they don't help this list meet our inclusion criteria. And a closing admin could justifiably dismiss those arguments and delete this list anyway. But there is a solution being suggested - an alternative to deletion - which is that a parent article be created to maintain the content (the hard work of editors). By way of an analogy, this is like creating a log-book for a car's service history before buying the car. It's like defining the nutritional qualities of a cake you haven't baked. It's like listing your favourite characters for a show you haven't watched. There's so much passion and interest here. Can I please urge those passionate about this topic: buy the car; bake the cake; watch the show. Accept this was created in the wrong format and write the article. I hate seeing work deleted because the editors involved couldn't see the wood for the trees. *frustrated editor noises*  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a good analogy would be creating an article for Bhutanese Jazz before having an article for Jazz. The clearly notable topic is Pedimental sculptures. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article, User:Vladimir.copic is Pediment, which was created in 2003. I'll add an obvious redirect. Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The target of that redirect (pediment) offers no information on pedimental sculpture, only on the notable architectural element, the pediment itself. Perhaps this list should be refocused into a List of pediments in Canada? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh? The 2nd sentence is "The tympanum, the triangular area within the pediment, is often decorated with relief sculpture", and several styles of sculpture are shown and captioned in the pictures. It's the correct redirect, and any expansion on the subject should start there. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does the first image illustrating this article show something completely different (i.e. sculptures above a pediment)? Is the term pedimental sculpture well-understood in the field of art history, and does it include both reliefs and over-pediment sculptures? pburka (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not ideal as a lead pic, though striking. The caption does say "Over-pedimental figure with horses...".   Pedimental sculpture is a well-understood term in art history, though the more precise "tympanum relief" or "tympanum sculptures" are probably more common.  Not all are reliefs - the most famous of all, the Parthenon Marbles are mostly free-standing, I think with some relief work behind. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on this score, @Vladimir.copic. A better analogy would be Canadian jazz, which does have an article, which can be accessed from the "Infobox music genre" located on the Jazz page you link to. As regards "Pedimental sculptures in Bhutan", I am not sure you'll find a single one! However, we know from this excellent article that there are a significant number of such pedimental sculptures and we can find out more about them.Leutha (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst I appreciate your point, @Johnbod, I've been bold and started Pedimental sculpture, including material about the development of interest in precisely the Parthenon Marbles which developed in the nineteenth century.Leutha (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Outstanding work Leutha! That being the case, Merge to Pedimental sculpture until such time as separate national lists can be justified by the length of that article.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the Pedimental sculptures in Canada page lately? It has been worked on continuously since this discussion started and is now a full, on-topic, quality page. "Until such time" has long passed, both the Canada and United States pediment pages certainly pass muster as Wikipedia worthy first-class articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have. Have you looked at that new article? The article that should have been created in the first place and into which a lot of that content should be merged? The issue remains that lists (of this form) are the solution to a problem; a problem that in this case simply doesn't exist. In fact, until the creation of that article, there wasn't even a place for that problem to have existed, such that it could have existed and required a solution. As I said earlier, the format choice here was unfortunate, but I'm genuinely keen for the content to be retained.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The opening line is instructive: "Pedimental sculptures in Canada are sculptures within the frame of a pediment on the exterior of a building." but just in Canada? There is nothing, other that the title, to suggest they are treated any differently in Canada, or that a specific list of Canadian examples needs to be separated from any general list of examples (should we require a list at all). And, and I can't stress this enough, this is a subject you'll only find here on Wikipedia because it is a synthesis of ideas that hasn't been the focus of significant study elsewhere. Pedimental sculpture exists, and there are some examples in Canada. It is original research to suggest than some commonality or uniqueness sets Canadian examples apart in a manner that requires specific coverage. Why not Pedimental sculptures in Canada in marble, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada in the context of court houses, or Pedimental sculptures in Canada created during the multiple Prime Ministerial terms of John A. Macdonald...? There is as much information available for me to sythesize a list together for each of those titles...  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I've looked at it, a good worldwide scope page which will get much better. That nice and fully worked-up separate list pages on Canada's pediment sculpture and United States pediment sculptures exist augments it and the topic. It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia, so let's not go backwards and remove one of the good ones. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to interpret the very novel, "It's about time that pediment sculptures got their due on Wikipedia" beyond stating the obvious; that we don't  owe  coverage to any subject, especially one that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I've actively suggested and supported an alternative to deletion for an article that in no way meets our inclusion criteria, but supporters seem keen to chant WP:ILIKEIT instead. *shrugs* .  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep this falls well within WP:LISTPURP, and is capable of satisfying WP:CSC. There may be a better way to organise the content of this topic and group these as sections on pages with a broader scope, but that's a matter for a merge discussion or rfc. Doesn't look like there's a WP:SALAT issue to me. For the record, yes I was brought here by one of those non-neutral notices, I'm not a fan of those, but I stand by my !vote nonetheless and don't believe the wording of the notice affected my decision making here. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (already !voted above) - I applaud the work done on pedimental sculpture which did not exist at the start of this discussion, and the material added to the article under discussion which handily demonstrates that there is one notable pedimental sculpture that is located in Canada. However, that addition illustrates the delete argument: that one sculpture is notable in isolation because of the folklore associated with it; its notability does not in any way derive from being in Canada. Many of the keep voters have described good general reasons why such a list would be kept, such as that pedimental sculptures in Canada are an important topic in art history or art criticism or architectural heritage, that there are many examples of specifically notable pedimental sculptures located in Canada, and/or that there are widespread sources discussing the topic of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically, and yes those are all very good guidelines, however no sources have been provided demonstrating that any of these arguments are true. Pedimental sculpture is notable, and Canada is notable, but "pedimental sculptures in Canada" is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Why is it non-notable? Because no evidence has been provided that it is notable, other than Wikipedians insisting that it is, and that is not how WP:GNG works. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comment, I can't speak for everyone, but in my case I think this is much like the Listed buildings in Rivington example in WP:CSC, where WP:LISTPURP is satisfied even though we have neither WP:SIGCOV on the topic itself, nor or most entries blue-linked. I only see a potential problem if it later turns out to be difficult to adjudicate inclusion criteria, or if the list grows beyond the stipulated 32k of text. While you reference cross-categorizations, WP:LISTN specifically states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists so that's hardly a strong deletion arguement. It continues Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability (emphasis mine). Even if those issues I mentioned do arise that is still not a reason for deletion since there is content suitable for merging elsewhere (WP:ATD) in which case WP:NNC will apply and any concerns over issues finding SIGCOV of pedimental sculpture as it pertains to Canada specifically would be purely academic. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Listed buildings in Rivington is not an apt comparison. As that featured article describes, Rivington is a nationally recognized heritage conservation area, and the buildings described therein are also individually listed on a national historic register; several have standalone articles and there are very likely to be academic sources for the ones that don't. This list of pedimental sculptures in Canada is just some art, with no indication that any of it is notable on its own. The buildings may be but as the linked CRHP pages describe, they are notable for heritage value in urban development and preservation, and examples of specific architectural styles, not for their artwork (or not significantly versus other factors). "There is no present consensus" does not mean we ignore the WP:GNG, and if this list fulfills some "recognized informational, navigation, or development purpose" then please provide any evidence at all that it is recognized, beyond your insistence that it is. Wikipedia is not a guidebook for art tourism and not a directory of indiscriminate information. As for WP:ATD, some (not very much) of the information here could be reorganized into lists of heritage architecture based on the CRHP's listings (e.g. the Ancienne-Douane could be included in a list of buildings by notable architect John Ostell, or a list of notable examples of Palladian architecture, if those existed, as those are the notable elements described on its CRHP page, not its pediment artwork). But "some of it could be reused" is not an argument for keeping the non-notable list. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continued engagement. no indication that any of it is notable on its own well you yourself have conceded at least one is, as to whether others are notable, probably some are, is that unsupported assertion, well so is your assertion that everything in Rivngton is notable, but it's unlikely that there are no others. But actually I think that's all academic/irrelevant, since GNG must be read in concert with LISTN as both are part of the same guideline. You assert that it is not recognised except WP:LISTN does not leave that term out there, hanging undefined. Instead it links directly to WP:LISTPURP, and this certainly falls within the ambit of informational purpose. You assert indiscriminate, predicated on your own analysis, but that's not how that works or else many afds would just have a chorus of people saying, I think it's indiscriminate and others saying I think it isn't with no standard by which to judge, but in fact we have guidelines that reify that policy in practice and in this case that guideline is WP:CSC. As of right now this passes the 3rd criterion Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group so it is not indiscriminate under our own guidelines (there is less than 32k of text). Finally you've conceded that there is useful information that could be organized and reused. If that is the case deletion is already off the table per policy, that may mean merging, but that can be dealt without outside of afd. Which is to say presumably you would be ok with a result of Keep with no prejudice against a speedy merge discussion, and I'd be fine with that as well, so our positions aren't too far apart, and I'd have to do some more research and think that one over. Of course that's just my opinion and I know your speaking to the group as a whole, likely will have a differrent perspective along with many others. Cheers, 81.177.27.61 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but Needs work I think the topic is within the notable topic of architecture in Canada. The article should focus on notable examples as sections, and keep a pruned list of examples of type. As it is, it is mostly just a long list of examples without notable characteristics fully documented. There is no way a list like this could be comprehensive, so it should focus on notable examples. For example, I would think all of the buildings on the registry of historic places should be kept. Sure, it is a niche work, but that should not matter. Alaney2k (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without knowing anything about Canadian heritage listings, I'd be rather surprised if any of the buildings on the list are not listed. For example neither the list nor the article say that the Alberta Legislature Building (top of the list) is listed, but I bet it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And here it is on the Alberta list. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The listing mentions the building's pediment several times but doesn't say anything about a sculpture within that pediment. The building is certainly notable, but is the pedimental sculpture? pburka (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I take "monumental pediment" to mean a pediment with monumental sculpture in it. There are several references to the level of ornamental sculpture on and in thebuilding. It isn't a very precise architectural description - it doesn't even say how many bays the facades have, normally the first thing any such description says. In any case it isn't necessary to demonstate the items in the list are individually notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic of pedimental sculpture itself is widely written on going back to Ancient Greece and Rome. As a broader art subject its of interest to writers on art and architecture. Likewise Canadian art is also a topic of interest within sources and research. In this case we are overlapping/intersecting two broader notable areas of art in what is a reasonable intersection. Likewise much of the architecture within the list is notable with its own stand alone articles, so this is a reasonable navigation list. Any unsourced content can be challenged and removed, but given that many of these are notable buildings there is likely to be RS to verify this article (much of it offline in books and other publications on the art and architecture of these buildings).4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * KEEP The only claimed policy based reason to delete I see above is WP:NLIST which says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." Nope - the guideline just doesn't agree with the claim. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (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.