Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Christopher Columbus (Chula Vista, California)


 * 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. Tone 15:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Statue of Christopher Columbus (Chula Vista, California)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This statue has no special artistic or historical significance. It doesn't inherit notability from the George Floyd protests. There are a lot more tiny stubs just like this one, along with a few good examples, listed in the template at the bottom. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, of course. There's plenty of sourcing for an entry: we know the author, dedication/installation date, description (dimensions, materials, etc), not to mention coverage about multiple instances of vandalism and details about the statue's removal. Next time try Googling before jumping to AfD? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems like a WP:BEFORE failure. Coverage in California-wide papers include a full Los Angeles Times article and San Diego Union-Tribune commentary, lots of NBC San Diego stuff like this. Lots of smaller mentions like San Francisco Chronicle and a satirical piece in the San Diego Reader. Also the stuff in the article already, including the Smithsonian listing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion and sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: looks perfectly valid. Mr Bulmer
 * Delete A 30-year old generic statue without any historical value, connection to the subject, or drive to be commissioned by a local group of any kind. Going into the Smithsonian source, it was commissioned by a land development company and mortgage provider not because Chula Vista is a hotspot of Columbus-mania, but just to decorate their new development during a time when everyone was commemorating the 500th anniversary of his voyage (often out of obligation/branding opportunities, and not actual interest in history). Hardly historically significant; I know there's coverage, but we don't need to cover every piece of public art, especially one commissioned as mere decoration for a housing development park. Discovery Park (Chula Vista, California) itself could be deleted; outside of the usual 'teens fought here' nonsense, it's a non-notable park.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The park should be kept for the words "middle school fight club" alone. As for the statue, aside from being well-sourced, it was one of Columbus' 500 year memorials, a select group although I don't know how many. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds a lot like an I don't like it argument. My problem with this argument is that we are not a paper encyclopedia paper encyclopedias with a limited number of article slots. To the contrary, we have unlimited spaces to fill and lack any guidance on determining the "significance" of articles outside of notability and related content policies (all of which are met for this article). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Not meant to be IDLI at all. The statue simply doesn't have local history, or a connection to a local cultural organization or Italian-American advocate group that most Columbus statues do. It was sculpted by real estate interests merely to provide a statue in a housing development to meet malicious compliance which required them to build out some parkland in the middle of a subdivision, and the only people likely to care about it until 2020 were area residents/the middle school fight club as a 'meet me here' guidepoint. There are elementary schools built in the 90s with more N than this generic statue.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I admit I may have misinterpreted your argument. However, it did get coverage in the 1990s and was included in the Smithsonian outdoor statue registry. I think this coverage combined with the substantial 2020 coverage is enough to push it over the notability guidelines. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per others. Well-sourced, & these are becoming hotter topics these days. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The Smithsonian listing cites several regional newspaper articles from 1990 and 1992 and notes that they have been included in the statue's file. I personally wasn't able to find the newspapers through my WIkipedia Library Card or from my actual library's website, but I presume that there are means for the public to view the contents of the Smithsonian file. All in all, I think sourcing is good and that notability is met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There are multiple reasons for notability. Collective notability is a strong reason to keep this article. In particular is the statue's connection to events transpiring with other acts of civil disobedience of Christopher Columbus memorials around the U.S. Myotus (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per others. I will add I'm partially Native Amerindian. I might not agree with what Columbus might've done or what he represents, but the article is still notable and verifiable. By the logic of removing this article, would be exact the same thing as suggesting we should rename Washington, DC., or renaming the country of Colombia. Best. JayzBox (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per links provided by Bilorv. Contrary to the nom, I'll say that this item did inherit notability from the George Floyd protests - the protests led to the statue's removal and its subsequent media coverage in various RSs which granted it notability per WP:GNG. Combefere  ❯❯❯  Talk  15:20, 1 May 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.