Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia of Carrick

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 delete. Tone 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia of Carrick

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are no reliable sources to be found for this mural which is on private property. The sources in the article have nothing to do with the mural or the Emma Lazarus Park so this article does not have any WP:RS. There is also no RS to support the claims of vandalism but there are photos. The article fails WP:V and WP:N Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Emma Lazarus Park is currently at AfD as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lazarus Park. I would think that these articles would stand or fall together, though perhaps this mural has gotten coverage the park hasn't. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching online, I could find nothing to substantiate the notability of this mural. There were a couple of social media hits that obviously do not count. Fails WP criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sourcing out there is user-generated, as in this Wikipedia page. There appears to be no independent notability. The article is also a strange essay of original research. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. You want to cancel an article on a mural? Go for it. It doesn't really matter. Consider it your accomplishment/good deed for the year. It literally isn't worth arguing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoham0211 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked for sources online and cannot find anything to help pass WP:GNG. Camerafiend (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has established notability standards for art, which are more stringent than "demonstrate the art exists". This does not meet those standards. To can this a "cancelation" is just a false statement. A cancelation of art is an act which destroys the art. The art exists indepdent of whether Wikipedia has an article on it. Wikipedia is meant to follow substantial secondary source coverage of things, not just be an indiscriminate coverage of absolutely everything there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, work of art in a private garden. In 2007, we could take seriously claims that they didn't know what Wikipedia is or is not, but in 2020, everybody know we are an encyclopedia and have some standards. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (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.