Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hiker (Fall River, Massachusetts)


 * 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   merge to The Hiker (Kitson). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hiker (Fall River, Massachusetts)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although the statue itself appears to be notable (and covered at The Hiker (Kitson), it does not appear to me that this particular installation is individually notable; there are at least 10 installations of this statue in Massachusetts alone. Despite the infobox and categorization, it is not on the National Register of Historic Places; the nomination was rejected in 1983. cmadler (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  —cmadler (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE I discovered (sort of like Columbus "discovered" America.  It was there long before it was "discovered")  this article, and that prompted me to write the The Hiker (Kitson) article, which I feel makes this one more or less redundant. If the picture is not already at the other article it should be.  I will check.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT This Hiker monument is unique because it is dedicated to the sons of Fall River, Massachusetts who fought in the war. It also contains a unique base once part of the Old Post Office that was demolished (along with three other statues throughout the city). There is no benefit to deleting this article which provides valuable information on this actual memorial. If anything, it should be expanded, not deleted. If anything, the other statues should have their own articles also.--Marcbela (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is to stay, please do me a favor and remove the reference to one in Ypsilanti, Michigan.  That monument to the sons of Ypsilanti who fought and died in various theaters around the world c. 1900 (war memorials are always dedicated to locals) is a different Hiker and is an example of why I feel the information about these is better kept in one article.  Details about the bases, or anything else, can be included there.  Carptrash (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is better to keep all the information in the main article. It's unlikely (though not inconceivable) that any single installation is notable beyond the notability of the work in general. cmadler (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WHICH IS MY POINT - The main articles do not contain any information on the specific monuments. Who they were dedicated by or to. While the statues may be identical, each monument is a memorial in itself, and is part of the overall story of the statues. Each one deserves its own article. Instead of wasting time trying to destroy a valuable piece of information, perhaps you should all work on contributing to those articles.--Marcbela (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouting will not help and this ("Instead of wasting time trying to destroy a valuable piece of information,") is the sort of remark that you do not need to make to experienced wikipedia editors.  Your argument actually looses points by my reckoning. The main article can contain as much information as we choose to put in it.  You have not, I believe, chosen the correct the Fall River article by removing the reference to Ypsilanti, suggesting to me that you either do not care about the accuracy of "your" article or are not reading my postings here. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, OK - I actually like the expanded main article. Can we at least create a table for the listing of locations? It could include columns for City, Date, Location, Coordinates, Photo, and notes with any special features for each monument.--Marcbela (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A table is a good idea; I was trying to figure out how best to list coordinates for each installation, and I think that's a good one. cmadler (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, I started a table at the bottom of the article - didn't change anything else for now. The pictures need to be added, such as they are, but I am pretty burned out for tonight. Carptrash (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fascinating how these statues proliferated. The table idea sounds ok by me if we don't lose the content, e.g., the rejected nomination that the Fall River one be deemed historic is interesting.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:41, 1 February 2012 (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.