Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Ruth Bader Ginsburg


 * 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. It looks like the refs added towards the end convinced most people, but at best this would be no consensus.  Sandstein  10:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Statue of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No claim to notability or duration of coverage. User:Namiba 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable at this moment. Article may come back after it is built if it's shown to have a large notability. Stay safe, Cyclone   Toby  12:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Silly. I say just keep the article and let it snowball but otherwise just redirect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'll just be recreating in a couple months unless another editor beats me to the punch. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * May I please request, IF we're not keeping in main space right now, can the page be moved to draft space instead of deleted? This will just be recreated in a couple months, assuming no unveiling delay. Another editor has also posted a note on my talk page saying they plan to help recreate this article as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguably passes GNG now & is sure to in a couple of months. Deletion would be purposeless. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify An easy solution would be to draftify the article rather than delete wholesale. It most likely will receive a lot of attention from media organizations over the next few months and especially once built. By then more sources could be added and the article could be expanded with more information. Wikipedia does have a notability guideline (WP:N) and it should be followed. Not notable now but will be very soon. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 13:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep Merge with Ruth Bader Ginsburg Gillie and Marc - this article on a commemorative public sculpture of a notable woman. When I arrived at this AfD, the article already had three sigcov citations in reliable, verifiable news sources: the New York Times, ABC News, and CBS news. I added two more; it now has five. A quick BEFORE search brought up multiple other news sources. I agree with that it is purposeless to delete it, or even to draftify - that would just make additional work for editors like  who has offered to recreate it. Honestly, I am very surprised this was nominated for deletion.  Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CommentAccording to WP:N and even WP:GNG multiple sources is considered sources that do not repeat the same information. They are reliable but they say the same thing, therefore they are counted as one source, not multiple as required by the notability guideline. It is not creating more work to draftify the article until all the information can be gathered and multiple sources which cover the story in a significant way from different angles can be found. If we go by policy, the article should not be included. The statue does not receive notability just because the subject of the statue is notable. We all know this...notability is not inherited. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I stand by my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I never expected otherwise. I just wanted to add the contextual differences between personal opinion and factual evidence. ;-) -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've never heard of this criteria requiring new information in each source. Where is this documented? ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The notes for WP:GNG state "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One can extrapolate from the information above that the notes are offering examples but that the same principle applies for all sources. If it is just the same story repeated over again or if the sources of the article are being pulled from the same sources themselves then it only counts as one source for notability. It must be several reliable sources independent of each other, not only literally but also in content. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK but all of this is not the same as your original blanket statement that if two sources have the same information, they should be considered one. What we're looking for is for sources to be independent of one another (and independent of the subject). I am aware of this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant what I said as my interpretations of the above wording. If you have three articles, from CNN, ABC NEWS, and MSNBC, all reporting on the same subject, from the same POV and basically saying the same thing they can only be counted as one source for notability despite being multiple reliable sources theselves. The story is the same and therefore is only one source. That's what I gathered from what was said. In the case of this statue, the few sources all state the same information therefore they are the same. There is no independent viewpoints because it is so new. They all cover the same subject from the same vantage point using the same sources for their work. That's what I was saying. My suggestion was to give it time and then recreate the page adding the new sources and it will be soething to support for inclusion. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 15:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see similar coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as an indication that the topic is important or at least popular. If we've deemed the sources reliable and independent, we should assume good faith in the reporting; It's not groupthink, perhaps the reporting is similar because the subject is just not that complicated. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a case of CRYSTALBALL. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * please see my comment below. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

*Comment for clarification - The sculpture has already been built. It exists. It has been photographed. It is finished. It has been written about in multiple verifiable independent reliable sources. It is the unveiling that has not happened yet. The unveiling ceremony will occur on March 15 because is the new official holiday in NYC, "Justice Ginsberg Day" (which is also her birthday). Therefore CRYSTALBALL does not apply. If the article was called "The unveiling of the statue of RGB" then it would apply, however, the sculpture DOES exist, it has been built, it is already notable. Look at the citations. Netherzone (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails in passing WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Lajmmoore (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Will definitely receive widespread coverage at the unveiling - there's no reason to delete it now only to recreate the exact same page later.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Is the topic of an RBG statue notable? Yes, because if the statue gets cancelled, there will be even more articles about the cancellation. If it gets built unveiled to the public, there will be even more articles about what people think of it. It is a certainty that there will be more articles on this topic. Also, not to discount my fine arguments, but RBG was awesome. Possibly (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequately covered in highly regarded secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge to subject's bio certainly will be notable once unveiled. Rather silly nom: "No claim to notability or duration of coverage". Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, Draftify, or Merge with Gillie and Marc. it pains me to vote to delete an article you started, and one about RBG, but the fact is that things are not what they seem: First and foremost, there are two sculptures, this one and an official permanent monument near her birthplace -- that is the one that Cuomo spoke about, and that is the one that had the legit jury. So half of the sources that  refer to are not actually about this work, and I have removed the 4 citations that refer to this other sculpture. Second, it is not verifiable that this one is permanent, as I believe is implied by 's argument. It is installed at City Point (Brooklyn), which is a mall. Gillie and Marc are known for putting up temporary sculptures on the premises of property developers, and ginning up tons of opportunist press coverage ("The Last Three" has significantly more press coverage than this sculpture, and we don't have an article for it), and sometimes generating pretty intense controversy for their kitsch, and lack of cultural sensitivity. And the vast majority of their sculptures are not of notable women, they are of an imaginary self portrait as a dog. If this sculpture is ultimately permanent, then maybe the article has a place, but almost none of their existing work is permanent. Until then it is Crystal Ball. Regretfully. Theredproject (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you clarifying this, and for taking the time to make changes to correct the errors that I unknowingly introduced. I was completely unaware of the issues you raise, and confused the two sculptures. I'm still somewhat confused, and am wondering if I should strike my comments above stating the the sculpture has already been built. Is the Cuomo sculpture built yet, or this one (which is the Gillie & Marc sculpture? That info will help in redefining my !vote accordingly. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It appears that the Gillie and Marc sculpture has been made, but not installed (though some of their other work has been presented as rendererings, so it is unclear if this is a sophisticated digital render). I did a Autobiography/COI TNT on their article a few years ago, so learned quite a bit about their work. They make/conceive sculptures, then work with real estate companies to temporarily install them on their property for 3 to 9 months, then move them to another site. The official, permanent sculpture has not yet been created, and will likely take quite a long time to create. Cuomo announced the 23 member commission in October. . This commission has Ginsburg's relatives, her colleagues, law clerks, the directors of the Brooklyn Museum, and El Museo del Barrio etc. Theredproject (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , got it, thank you for straitening that out. It is also good to know the Gillie and Marc article and any associated articles on their specific works should be watched for continued PROMO moving forward. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in fact being installed permanently. A number of sources indicate that. Including this one. Does that change your view - given your above comments? Thanks.2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to Ruth Bader Ginsburg: WP:N, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." There is no reason to have separate articles about every public honor a person receives, even if it has articles in the news. This content should be handled in the main article; if that is too large, create a page for memorials and hornors, not individual pages. 05:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
 * Clear Keep. We have to look at more than the refs in the article. I just added eight or nine more rs refs. There are a lot out there. Clearly passes GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify WP:TOOSOON for an unbuilt statue. KidAd   talk  16:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTIFY is not allowed because the article is being actively worked on (almost 50 edits in the last few days). ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Ruth Bader Ginsburg per TimothyBlue. Notability of statues is not inherited from their subjects, and there is no indication of long-term, enduring coverage that would justify a separate article. Edge3 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. Störm   (talk)  07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because I can't see the justification for deletion. Deb (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per discussion and obvious well-sourced notable topic with sources added since the nom. The statue is not "crystal", it exists, and is one of the few statues of real-life women in New York city. As Deb says, can't see the justification for deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ruth Bader Ginsburg per those above, and per WP:NOTINHERITED. The article as it stands now is hanging a promotion for the artists on the WP:COATRACK of the statue, but as of now the statue itself is not notable separately from the individual it depicts, and details can be easily summarized in the biography. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question. User:Namiba, when you nominated the article it had only one reference. It now has 20, including from the New York Times, CNN, and PEOPLE, some of which you may believe are RSs devoted to the subject of this article. Do you still believe that it does not meet GNG, or does this soften your opinion? 2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now has multiple tertiary sources that provide coverage of the topic, though some of them duplicate each other. However, the statue hasn't been unveiled yet, so coverage of the statue will unsurprisingly be limited at the present time. As a result, I'm not opposed to merging this article for now, although that would likely end up unmerged anyway once it is unveiled. Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 22 January 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.