This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
A fact from Rick Kirby appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 February 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Closing per request; no consensus for/consensus against a merger; reasonable points were raised on both sides, with the opposition having the weight of numbers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It appeared from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) that there was some sentiment for merging Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) into the Rick Kirby article, especially among those who felt that this particular sculpture was not independently notable. I am reproposing that merger on that basis, and opening discussion. I have notified the participants in the Afd of this discussion. As I see it much of the material contained in the scupture article is not actually about the sculpture, and would not be necessary to keep (although it will remain in the redirects history after merger.) --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far more notable than many subjects of such articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's notable, and has received independent and significant coverage. Merging it with Rick Kirby would give the one sculpture a disproportionate weight compared to his other works; this happened when in the previous discussion someone merged it without waiting for consensus, causing another person to (incorrectly) state that "it seems certain that ... he only has one sculpture worth writing about in detail". --Usernameunique (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much of the coverage seems to be about the visitor center, of which this is only a part,. Disproportionate coverage can be dealt with by including only the actually relevant material. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disclaimer: I was pinged to then original deletion discussion, but, for some reason failed to participate. There too, I would have opposed merging on grounds outlined above; viz, that it would be far too WP:UNDUE to satisfactorily transpose the information without losing much of the sourced material. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors mention WP:UNDUE, but fail to address DGG's point that Disproportionate coverage can be dealt with by including only the actually relevant material. --Bejnar (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The unspoken assumption of such a statement is that some of the material in the article is irrelevant. Sutton Hoo Helmet is a site-specific artwork, however, and so any discussion of it need necessarily include discussion of its context; the removal of that information in an to attempt to jam two articles together would fail to give a holistic account of the sculpture. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
