Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Josiah Quincy III (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Statue of Josiah Quincy III
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I have no idea why the first nomination was withdrawn but there's no real claim for notability (the survey mentioned is intended to be all-inclusive). An image in Quincy's article suffices. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. No notability? The statue was erected in 1879 in front of Boston's City Hall, a City Hall which was the official center of Boston government for the next 90 years. A major city like Boston, of such importance to the nation and its history, just doesn't toss up a statue of anybody in front of their City Hall for 90 years. One that's still sitting there at the historical site another 54 years later and apparently has survived the 2020s statue purge. Its only statue companion? Benjamin Franklin. The Quincy statue seems notable from common sense alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Without respect to this particular subject, Boston has hundreds of statues. Some indeed are notable, but nothing is notable just because it exists.  What common sense dictates is that since notability standards have not yet been repealed, one must actually find sources.   Ravenswing      04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Location, location, location. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the second time you've said a statue is notable because it exists. Please stop it. Now, sources have been added in part because it's in a prominent place, but if its notability is merely inherited from location, it should be merged to Old City Hall (Boston). Public buildings often have public art, but that doesn't inherently mean they need stand-alone articles unless there is significant independent coverage, and this is not a policy-based vote that a closing admin should give any weight to. Reywas92Talk 13:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources, as mentioned by others below. My comment was about WP:COMMONSENSE, which is an aspect of WP:IAR (a major Wikipedia policy). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's not common sense, because even if others find sources after you make a meaningless comment, there could still be a WP:NOPAGE argument to merge, perhaps even to something like Public art of Old City Hall (Boston). You didn't say "There are probably plenty of sources for something old downtown", you said "It's automatically notable because of where it is." Location is not and never has been an exemption to our notability standards. Reywas92Talk 13:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, WP:COMMONSENSE is an aspect of the policy WP:IAR, which my comment covers (referring to the maintaining of Wikipedia by not removing this statue's page). Can we please stop cluttering this discussion with a semantic dispute, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some sources based on a quick Google Books search, and surely a search in the newspaper archives would yield plenty more. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets GNG, with substantial coverage in multiple sources; the modern sources indicate lasting importance. It's difficult to believe that a statue listed in every tourist guidebook of the day, and that got two whole columns for the mayor's speech at its dedication, wouldn't be notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on coverage in reliable sources, meets GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2023 (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.