Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puffin (sculpture)


 * 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   delete. Only one of the keep votes adduced policy but was refuted by demonstration that the sources were not detailed. Policy is clear -the standard to judge the sources by is the GNG and the evidence from the discussion is that is is not met. Arguments to ignore policy are not compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Puffin (sculpture)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable: the references are just an inventory listing and an article merely mentioning it as part of a long article on the local puffins.  DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral but will note that I've found the following possible sources for this article:
 * http://ouroregoncoast.com/cannon-beach-oregon/1186-oregon-coast-tufted-puffins-the-iconic-bird-of-cannon-beach-could-be-in-trouble-.html
 * http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/tufted_puffins_the_iconic_bird.html
 * Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -Unable to find any sources that would suggest subject meeting the general notability guideline. Nothing substantial found on any of my preferred places, Google/Highbeam/JSTOR. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep I was unable to find any sources past those found by User:Techincal 13, but I think those are enough to justify an article about this sculpture because they are both reliable secondary sources and because no original research is needed to write this article. Winner 42 Talk to me!  21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: What the hell? All that first link--- and what makes ouroregoncoast.com a "reliable source?"--- says about the subject is in a freaking photo caption ("This wooden sculpture of a Tufted Puffins helps guard the Surfsand Resort in Cannon Beach."  Period).  The Oregonian is a reliable source, but all it says about the subject is the same thing, a one sentence photo caption ... because it's the same damn article. Honestly, if you're gonna advocate keep based on two sources that you plainly didn't even give a casual glance, why bother?  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anonymous sculpture that has received some notoriety, having been catalogued by the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalogue. It has been assigned a "control number" by Smithsonian and it seems that repairs are contemplated, suggesting longevity for the sculpture as a landmark. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Great, but in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, the subject needs to meet the GNG and be discussed in significant detail in multiple reliable sources. What sources are you saying are out there?  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is rare to have good information about relatively minor works of art. In my opinion you've got to cut them some slack. A work of art often has little information associated with it. When we have articles devoted to individual works of art, there is often very little material in the article. Nevertheless I think it is good to have articles on individual works of art. They are unique entities. If they have been around awhile and substantial notice has been taken of them, I think they warrant a page on Wikipedia. The Smithsonian had to confront this same question before cataloging this sculpture. They are an august institution. If they have deemed it worthy of adding to their list of outdoor sculptures of some importance, we should follow suit. In my opinion very little can be said about most works of art. WP:GNG has its guidelines. But they should be adjusted as needed. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Bus stop (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by article creator: Well said, Bus stop. I have not participated in this discussion thus far, because I thought it best to observe and take time to have an internal debate re: whether or not this work of art met notability standards. I recognize GNG, but have the same feeling that you do about works of art, especially those which have been catalogued by an institution like Smithsonian. I am curious to see the final result of this discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to make that argument. WP:V is clear.  WP:GNG is clear: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."  The answer to artworks not measuring up isn't "Then we have to suspend WP:V in favor of minor artworks."  It's "Then the subject doesn't merit a Wikipedia article."  I hope the closing admin discounts the WP:ILIKEIT argument.  Nha Trang  Allons! 22:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Smithsonian document in my opinion happens to be an excellent source. It is providing us with what I consider first rate information. Unfortunately the artist's name is unknown. But we know its approximate year of creation. We know the medium in which it is made. We know its dimensions. Smithsonian provides their own description and they claim to have an image on file. In my opinion the Smithsonian document is strong. As far as relatively minor works of art are concerned, we could not have better sourcing than the Smithsonian document seen here. WP:V and WP:GNG are satisfied by the Smithsonian document concerning the particular sculpture that is the subject of this article. Please be specific with reference to policy language. Please tell me where the subject of this article falls short of satisfying specific policy language. I will tell you right away that we should be more lenient when it comes to works of art. In many cases there is not much that can be said about them. Works of art very often defy interpretation. We don't doubt their significance if they have "staying-power", that is they've stood the test of time, and if sources independent of them have taken note of their existence. The Smithsonian is not promoting this sculpture because the Smithsonian is independent of it. An important principle of WP:GNG is that the source be independent of the subject. In general, individual works of art should not be held to as high a set of standards of other topics for articles. This is an example of Wikipedia's standards being met for an article on an individual work of art. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: The Smithsonian is indeed a reliable source: but, in this case, not to support the notability of the subject. And what the heck, you need to have the guideline written out for you here, instead of reading it there? "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial. Those are all direct quotes from WP:GNG.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of an article on an individual work of art. (Or this or this.) Notice how little is said in the article. Do you think the article is in violation of Wikipedia policy? I think policy should be loosened as concerns individual works of art. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Do I think that those articles you cited pass muster? Not with their current sourcing, no.  Should they be AfDed?  If no one can find qualifying sources, yes.  Should WP:V be suspended for individual works of art?  I don't think so, but this isn't the place to make that argument.  Try the WP:V talk page.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems relatively and locally notable; and probably needs a few more sources; and needs work, I agree per above it's worth working on...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. We happen to have very good articles on individual works of art with no more sourcing than this article has. My concern is with letting personal preferences creep into these decisions. We don't have any more sourcing supporting the existence of Poland (sculpture), by Mark di Suvero. Should we delete our article on Poland (sculpture)? Of course not. Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "cmment'' The inventory is a good source of information, but it doesn't show importance,, just existence. It'a an inventory ,and is intended to be as complete as possible.  DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. Could not find anything else supporting the notability of the sculpture.   The second source in the article is a farce and should have  added.  The Dissident Aggressor 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia doesn't have higher standards than the Smithsonian Institution's Save Outdoor Sculpture! program. Puffin (sculpture) is listed in Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture!. An editor is going to point out to me that we don't have commentary on the artwork. Indeed we do not need commentary on the artwork. We want to know that it has importance. We should not be so negligent as to present an article on an artwork that has not received recognition. We are, or we should be, looking for good indication that the artwork has received real recognition. The Smithsonian is providing us with this. It is 100% independent of anything having anything to do with the artwork. These are government-run institutions. They would not devote their time and energy and money to documenting an artwork they did not deem worthy of documentation. What you are taking issue with is the absence of what could potentially be dross. At the least what you are taking issue with is the absence of material that sometimes is of secondary importance in not only this article but in for instance several other articles on outdoor sculptures, such as by Mark di Suvero. With or without an image of the artwork these are worthy additions to our project. With images they are or would be much better. We should try to include an image of this sculpture in this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep. It seems to me that the article should be kept and expanded upon, just as say, the Madras Rouge article should be kept and expanded upon. We should certainly not censor under the pretext that the article doesn't yet "pass muster", or that the sculpture may be a minor work of art, or because the author is (currently) anonymous. Coldcreation (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (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.