Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benito Juárez (Martinez)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benito Juárez (Martinez)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Except for a couple of primary sources, the only other thing I found was a brief mention in a guide book [1]. Insufficient coverage. MB 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC) MB 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this could be a short but helpful article. I went ahead and added the Smithsonian Institution link, plus two City of Houston sources. I also found this book source which describes a full-length statue of Juárez by Martinez. More research is needed here to confirm this is the same artists. If so, the Wikipedia article needs to be updated accordingly, describing both works in separate cities. I am looking for additional sources as well, though I hesitate to spend too much time expanding the article in the immediate future if deletion is a possibility (catch 22, here). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source says, "The 16-foot tall statue of Benito Pablo Juárez was a gift to the city by the counsel general of Mexico in February of 1999. The statue was created by Julian Martinez, and is a replacement for the bust gifted by the Mexican President in 1977." Interesting that the statue replaces a bust, perhaps similar to the one in Houston. Again, there is more to this story, and more research is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems there are 3 works here: the bust in Chicago, which has been replaced by a full-length statue, plus the bust in Houston. These three works can also be described here, and with some additional research and expansion, I believe this could make a nice addition to the encyclopedia. I've quickly added some content, images, and inline citations to help establish notability, but I'm still hesitant to spend too much time saving this article just to avoid deletion. I'm working on a few other articles presently, but I'd love to revisit this at a later date. In the meantime, I'll add the WikiProject Chicago and Illinois banners to the talk page, and keep my fingers crossed editors help identify additional sources and keep this stub. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With only listings and no reliable, secondary source coverage, this topic is better off merged or deleted than standalone. Also those Commons images should be transferred to enwp as fair use before they're deleted—the sculpture has every indication of being under copyright. czar 16:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you've searched newspaper archives to determine there's no secondary coverage? If not, I wouldn't assume it does not exist. Yes, the image of the sculpture should probably be moved from Commons to ENWP as fair use (not sure if there's a tool for this?), but I think the images of the plaque and park should be fine, no? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well written and researched, and well sourced. It should be hard to delete pages on recognized statues and monuments, and this one is obviously notable per itself, its prominent location, and its subject. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.