Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garysauruses

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 redirect to Jim Gary. (Apologies to anyone waiting on this to get resolved, looks like it got lost in the shuffle somehow!) Arguments by single-purpose accounts aside, there is simply no convincing argument here that the term passes either WP:NEO or WP:N. What to merge is an editorial decision, history will be left intact for those interested in doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garysauruses

non notable term in the visual arts Bus stop 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree strongly --- No one has suggested that this term is meant to identify a new category of visual arts. This is a unique term coined by an art critic in England to describe significantly notable sculpture that has received recognition among fine art circles and museums as well as being featured frequently in the New York Times, other papers of its caliber, and the Smithsonian Magazine. The unique work has been reviewed in media around the world. The justification given in the suggestion for deletion reminds me of the term "impressionist" being applied by an art critic to the work of a handful of painters who were showing outside of the establishment in Paris, this being the way terms originate, and its uniqueness alone ought to make an article about it appropriate. Not sure of the procedure to follow, so am requesting the removal of the prod template as advised previously, for further consideration. Will return to complete that task if that is necessary -- please advise. 83d40m 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above -- Yes, it is a unique term, and it belongs uniquely in the article on Jim Gary. We are not debating the notability of the artist Jim Gary. That article exists and this term is mentioned in that article. It is a relatively insignificant term and no purpose is served by having an additional article on it. It does not apply to anything besides some of the sculptures of Jim Gary. Therefore it belongs primarily in that article. It certainly does not deserve a separate, freestanding article devoted to just that one relatively insignificant term. Bus stop 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEO, Wikipedia should not be the means of publicizing a coined word that is not yet in general circulation. Only 179 Google hits for this word, which suggests the term is not notable. Agree with Bus stop that the term 'Garysaurus' can reasonably be used in the Jim Gary article but doesn't need its own article. I believe that 83d40m who says 'disagree strongly' above should be viewed as voting 'Strong keep' in our usual terminology. He can correct me if I'm wrong.EdJohnston 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be a more conventional way to phrase it, but then we don't really vote here. zadignose 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is not categorised as a term or a word. As an article on a series of artworks it establishes notability easily. Both objections above seem misconceived to me, although the first sentence should be rewritten, like most WP leads using the word "term". It could be merged to his main article with no loss though. I'm fine with the rename to C20th Dinosaurs proposed below also. Johnbod 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above -- An article on a series of artworks? The man's surname is Gary, and the artworks are sculptures of dinosaurs. Add one to the other and you get "Garysaurus." How does this free standing article serve any purpose? I've just written the article. This is a reasonable substitute for the article: The man's surname is Gary, and the artworks are sculptures of dinosaurs. Bus stop 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of articles on individual artworks and series thereof. Warhol's Campbell Soup Can works are one of VA's few featured articles. The current version of the article is much better than your proposed replacement. Everything you say would apply to "Rembrandt's etchings", which is unfortunately an article we don't have. Johnbod 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are other issues too. Jim Gary's art is not considered serious. It is entertaining. It is whimsical. I am not trying to take a snobbish, remote, inaccessible attitude to art. But when art doesn't address issues currently in art it tends to remain irrelevant. And that gets us back to the term Garysaurus. The term, and the article, is just an attempt to raise these dinosaurs to the level of relevant and serious art. Notice how the post by 83d40m first makes the point that "No one has suggested that this term is meant to identify a new category of visual arts." After that denial, all references are to "serious" art. First it is pointed out that the term was coined by an art critic. Then, the term is compared to the term Impressionism. Impressionism is clearly in the category of the most serious art of it's time. No offense is intended to 83d40m, but there is a contradiction in that post. If the term is not meant to "identify a new category of visual arts," then what is it trying to accomplish? Why the references to the art critic, and why is the term compared to the important art historical term, Impressionism? I think this is an instance in which editors should make value judgments and not blindly follow precedents that are not really precedents. Anybody can make a nickname for anything. There are other factors that apply. Has the importance of the critic coining that term been established? (I believe it says the term was coined in 2006.) Has it experienced any more widespread use? Bus stop 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jim Gary, but please leave out the silliness about how the term creates a new "pseudophylum". —Cel ithemis 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Jim Gary. I personally think the "Garysauruses - a neologism" section that already exists in that article is probably sufficient and no further merge is necessary. However, I have no objection if someone wants to expand it.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and Redirect to relevant section This section of the Jim Gary article is already sufficient for the notability of the term, which doesn't apply in any broader sense and doesn't require a unique article. zadignose 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- if that is the preferred term for my position -- is based upon the fact that these sculptures by Jim Gary are distinctive and only one category of his work... the fact that Jacques Lipchitz, a sculptor of international acclaim, admired his formal work makes the comments of bus stop seem rather hollow -- this is the encyclopedia that has an article on the Office Assistant feature included in Microsoft Office 97 software, named Clippit or Clippy -- how then could an article about a distinctive group of sculptures by a sculptor recognized by the New York Times, Smithsonian, the L A Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine, ABC This Week, that have traveled the world being displayed in fine art museums as well as museums of natural history be considered too trivial to be included in it? The term provides ten pages of results from Google, including other on-line encyclopedias. 83d40m 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again -- we are not discussing the notability of Jim Gary. We are discussing the term that this article is about. The term was mentioned once in an article on February 14, 2006. Has the term ever been used again? It says in the Jim Gary article that, "The apt name for his dinosaur sculptures has begun to be used by others." Which others? Who else has used the term since it's first instance of use? I feel that the term is just a nickname used by a very small circle of people who knew Jim Gary personally. Their use of the term, if I am right, is just an expression of affection for the memory of the man. If I am right, it is of no consequence beyond a very small circle of people, and it therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. Unlike Impressionism, it does not convey any meaning. It is only a reference to the dinosaur sculptures of Jim Gary. That is mentioned in the Jim Gary article. How is that important enough to warrant an article? Impressionism refers to many artist's work. The concept of Impressionism is linked in the writings of many prominent commentators to prevalent thoughts that were in the air at the time. How does the term that this article is about, shed light on anything, other than provide us with a nickname for some of the sculptures of one artist? Bus stop 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be my vote for the article on Garysauruses. The similarity of having an article on the Office Assistant feature included in Microsoft Office 97 software that is separate from the article on Microsoft Office 97 seems quite clear to me -- if Clippy can have a separate article, why not Garysauruses? I bet there are thousands of examples we could find of articles on something already contained in another article -- but with discussion of only that aspect -- are we running out of space, eliminating trivia, or paring down entries? Should we dump Clippy next? These sculptures are only one part of his work, but quite different from the rest, and seemingly worthy of note separately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. There are certainly thousands of articles on WP that probably don't belong. However, the fact that other questionable articles exist is not generally a reason to keep something. No one is saying that there shouldn't be coverage of these sculptures on WP; I just don't think it needs to be in a separate article from Jim Gary, whose article is pretty short. Also, the name "Garysaurus" is pretty clearly a neolgism or a protologism.--Kubigula (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Johnbud - The various critters designated by this term were renowned around the world in popular culture, natural history circles, and at fine art venues such as fine arts museums, formal botanical gardens, and national art shows. They were a later portion of the work of Jim Gary, qualifying as a phase or series. First, his formal work gained the recognition and admiration of the most highly respected sculptors (such as Jacques Lipchitz) and the judges of art shows and venues, long before he began to book his Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs as a traveling exhibition. Major portions of his works are quite "serious" contrary to Bus Stop's mistaken comment.... which demonstrates that he has not become familiar enough with Gary's work to understand that the critters Gary made were a portion of his works as distinctive and authentic as Alexander Calder's circus... as noted in WP,"Soon, his "Cirque Calder" (now on view at the Whitney Museum of American Art) became popular with the Parisian avant-garde, and Calder began charging an entrance fee to see his two hour show of a circus that he could pack into a suitcase." Just taking the links provided at the main article for Jim Gary provides access to articles such as the Washington Post, which provides discussion of his formal work also. His life sized work, Universal Woman, alone astounded most sculptors who examined it -- his versatility was demonstrated in life sized stained glass figures, abstracts, furniture, and architectural works for buildings as well. Gary's critters were an extensive portion of the artist's work. The construction of them was as masterful as the use of materials to create his most famous figures. It makes sense to me to recognize the distinctiveness of the formal work from the joyful critters that he first built for himself and later used as a traveling exhibition he rented out for his basic income, closing his gallery and concentrating upon his formal works and the new critters he built for the exhibition. I believe further, that Bus Stop's comment, Jim Gary's art is not considered serious. It is entertaining. It is whimsical... must relate only to the Garysauruses -- which becomes the justification for a separate discussion of them in a separate article.... When I lived on the East Coast I was a member of a prominent art association in New Jersey and served as one of the judges for its annual show where I saw Gary's abstracts and figurative works take the first prizes in sculpture at ours as well as all art shows throughout the New York Metropolitan circuit - consistently - for fifteen years before he began to exhibit the critters. Works that were not serious never won in that sophisticated competition venue! He supported himself through the sale of his sculpture in that same sophisticated market. After I moved to the West Coast I found his work featured there just as prominently at museums and shows. When the owners of his formal works begin to donate it to museums and copyright issues are no longer an issue, perhaps we can feature some of his formal works in the main article -- that will demonstrate the clear differences between the critters and the formal even though his skill as a sculptor is clear in all of his work. Twenty or more Campbell's Soup Cans have a separate article from Andy Warhol, so why shouldn't thirty or more Garysauruses have a separate article? ----- I would approve a change of the title of this article to 'Twentieth Century Dinosaurs' (Gary's own trade term for the exhibition which gets 546 results on a Google search) if Bus Stop's concern is just the fact that the new word coined by an art critic in London was first published as part of an obituary of Jim Gary in the UK when news of his death shot around the world, does not receive so many results. ------ Hummmmm... of consequence only to small group of people who knew Gary personally (?), wonder why there were all those obituaries published around the world? Wonder why all those museums held exhibitions of his work? I think the distinctive work from this phase of Jim Gary's works is worthy of a separate article. - L.V. of L.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.40.107 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC).— 67.150.40.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep and use the trade name sculptor Jim Gary used in all of his dealings for his traveling exhibition -- Twentieth Century Dinosaurs as the title -- what a good idea, I change my vote to this concept, it makes the most sense and should be acceptable to all -- the name is in wide use and it is a precise focus upon one phase of his sculpture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 65.196.169.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note that IP 65.196.169.194 has supported "keep" twice. I understand that the second addition was more of a clarification, so it should be styled as a "comment" to make life a little easier for the closing admin.--Kubigula (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I raised a question. I don't know if it's been addressed. Has the term Garysauruses been used since it's coining in 2006? The article (the Jim Gary article) says: "The apt name for his dinosaur sculptures has begun to be used by others." Are there any citations of further use, especially in reliable sources, of the term, since it's initial use in 2006? What about the new term -- "Twentieth Century Dinosaurs?" Does it have any citations? I'm just asking what history of use either of these terms have. Bus stop 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the term Twentieth Century Dinosaurs has been in use widely for twenty-five years of my knowedge -- being the TA name (trading as, or business name) of the exhibition and the identity of the exhibition as presented on all of the banners and adverising of museums and other venues, presented as, Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs. All invoices and payments for the exhibition were under that name. The banner at the Smithsonian used it and used it in their magazine... It was used on all of the ads for the exhibit during all of that time, such as in Washington D.C. and Toyko on the trains, buses, and kiosks and around the world as well as on a hundred thousand t-shirts -- can not address citations for the term Garysauruses, sorry

Comment -- Can you post any links to or instances of any reliable sources in which the term is used? My point is that if the term has no wider circulation then what is the point to an article by that name? Bus stop 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request seems quite vague to me, a little reading of the results at Google might provide what you are seeking and the site for Jim Gary documents all of the sources of published articles, internet features, lots of links, and television reports and programs. The book on Jim Gary cites lots of sources. Your issue is not very clearly stated and you seem to be the only one failing to look into it yourself... With all due respect, if I can find this material, you should be able to also, so let your fingers do the walking... as they say! I believe that wp-editors should not be asking other editors to do what they can for themselves, to make their decisions. I can provide you with my opinions based upon my examination of the issue raised, that you want to delete the article. I disagree with your initiative. Very few other editors are involved in this consideration, the opinions are divided -- no clear desire to delete -- is there a personal agenda here? I would think that without a clear agreement to delete, by default, it should remain. I do agree with another editor that the title might be better as Twentieth Century Dinosaurs, but am okay with either. We are editors for a popular encyclopedia of things of interest to a broad population, not art critics. Twinkies are as important to us as turkey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. You probably wouldn't make this comment if you had ever read the Wikipedia policy on neologisms, WP:NEO. Please note that the administrator who closes the AfD is expected to follow policy. If your comment basically says WP:ILIKEIT, and 'This term has been used, but not in any places considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia', your comment will probably have little influence. In any case, your vote as an IP who has never participated outside this AfD is not likely to carry much weight. Either provide the missing information, or provide us a good argument, or your comment isn't very useful. Per WP:V the person who wants the information to be included has to do the legwork. EdJohnston 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep but switch to Twentieth Century Dinosaurs -- I have to agree that this would be a better title for the article. I also believe that the value of the contribution of an editor is more important than the registration status of the editor, taking my clue from the description of Wikipedia itself, "anyone can edit..." and regret another editor's statement that your comment will probably have little influence. In any case, your vote as an IP who has never participated outside this AfD is not likely to carry much weight.. -- I thought we were supposed to encourage new editors. Reliable sources that have used the term Twentieth Century Dinosaurs to describe the critters included in the sculptor Jim Gary traveling exhibition include The New York Times (several decades of use), The Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, The New York Sun, The Dallas Morning News, Time Magazine, National Geographic World, Silver Burdett division of Time-Life, Smithsonian Magazine, The Boston Herald, the Tokyo Asahi, the Paris Herald Tribune, the German Lebens Art, The New Yorker, and Sculpture Review; among television broadcasts are ABC News-This week, A&ETV's Walter Cronkite documentary, Dinosaur!, the Discovery Channel, CBS's special on dinosaurs which was hosted by Christopher Reeves, Real People!, The Today Show, New York Views, Good Morning America, Prime Time, Wonderama, To Tell the Truth, That's Incredible!, CNN News, The Electric Company, Ripley's Believe It or Not!; links on the Internet include http://www.belkcollege.uncc.edu/news/dinosaurs.htm and an affiliate of PBS, http://www.njn.net/television/specials/life360/themesjimgary.html , http://www.kafi-benz.com/display.php?id=0001&title=Jim%20Gary's%20Twentieth%20Century%20Dinosaurs&newcnt=1, BOCC Minute : Sep 28, 1993 ; The Tallahassee Museum of History and Natural Science will host the first major showing of "Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs" ... cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/finance/board_minutes/minutes/regular/1993/93-09-28.html and expect that these should qualify to meet the standard. So perhaps we can shift the discussion to changing the title of this article to document the works by this sculptor that are a distinct phase of his work with a widely known term to describe that distinct phase. 83d40m 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Even with the new citation or two I repeat that my vote is to delete. The citations only support the Jim Gary article. There is no reason for a separate article. Jim Gary does not warrant two articles. If he is best known for these sculptures, fine, they can be adequately described in one article. Wikipedia does not have to be used to expand the exposure for an artist whose stature is relatively unimportant. Bus stop 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep with title change to twentieth century dinosaurs -- it has been used for several decades for the unique exhibition -- separate from the rest of his works which continued to be shown and marketed in fine art circles without that name. Smithsonian director said the exhibit brought the largest attendance on record. S2us 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- but use Gary's own name of the exhibit would be my vote for keeping this article -- thanks for the invitation to participate in this discussion Bus Stop, I might have missed it. -- I see a distinct difference in the types of work created by Jim Gary and think the exhibit has had a life of its own... quite apart from all the other types of work of this sculptor. All of his work is quite highly skilled and creative, and his similarly life-sized figurative works are well respected. Since they are held in private collections, it will be some time before they begin to be valued correctly. I think his stained glass and figurative works deserve greater coverage in the primary article, but good photographs of the works are needed for that. I think that the exhibit is very well known among hundreds of thousands of fans and millions have seen it in textbooks, magazines, newspapers, movies, and on television so it warrants a separate article. There also are many good Internet links to examples of the critters. I hear rumors that a major institution is interested in keeping the exhibit together once his estate is settled, won't you be surprised. His official site is still operational, being maintained by his long time studio director. Perhaps you can get some information on the figurative works to become more familiar with them. Think that you have underestimated the value of the Gary works -- and especially -- the fine art produced all along his career. If his work was admired at a show by someone such as Lipchitz, a giant among sculptors, and engaged him enough to provide a professional suggestion to Gary for designing an appropriate base to complement the work, it is not likely to be unimportant. Time will tell -- Back to this article, since Gary showed the exhibit all around the world, I would change the title of this article to what he used, Twentieth Century Dinosaurs, -- the name Garysauruses for the dinosaurs is very novel, but just a catchy invention of one art critic. I do not expect it to endure as its real name will, so that is why I would support the title change and keeping the separate article. Khand 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be mistaken, if the article is kept as Garysauruses, it would be all right with me also... it is the separate article that I think is warranted. And, BTW, I think the documentation above of unregistered editors' frequency with the same ip address is misleading, an ip address often changes for unregistered editors with each dial-up or connection and can not be proof of the entries or lack of entries for that editor. Many good and valuable editors refrain from registering and their contributions are welcomed. Such tactics seem intended to set a bias in the review of this discussion. Khand 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this for a few days, I have decided that being the one who began the page, if a decision is made to rename the article to 'Twentieth Century Dinosaurs', I should rewrite it to conform to the new title rather than the neologism. I could begin that before the close of the discussion if there is consensus for me to alter the article for further consideration. Khand 21:32, 1 May 2007 (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.