Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Memorial

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 keep. Courcelles 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Memorial

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

This monument does not appear to be notable.

I have found a host of similar articles, all apparently based on data from the Smithsonian Institution. The writer has put a great deal of work into these articles; however, this shows that the author of an article should carefully check for notability before beginning to write in earnest. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the outcome of this discussion, a mass nomination may be in order: see Frederick Keep Monument and McKee Grave, for example. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about creating a List of monuments located at Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington, D.C.? The article is very nice and the information is verifiable, but I don't think we should maintain stand alone articles for all the memorial art works located at that site. The Smithsonian Institute lists 54 (!) monuments [1] located at Rock Creek Cemetery. It should be merged all in one article/list, but not deleted. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of this and hundreds of public art articles, we've been through this before and all of the articles have been kept. Being covered by the Smithsonian Institution provides instant notability, and I have written List of public art in Washington, D.C., which was even nominated for deletion, at one point. The Smithsonian works listed from the Save Outdoor Sculpture! survey for Rock Creek Cemetery are listed here: List of public art in Washington, D.C., Ward 4. And if you have desire to delete these other artworks, then you'll have hundreds of articles to look at around the world. I don't expect every Wikipedian to be versed in art and fine art history, but, for those of us in the field, these works are notable. To nominate these artworks for deletion, which are so important to the cultural heritage of American art history that they were documented in great detail by the Smithsonian, is painful to see, but understandable if perhaps one isn't aware of art history or the work we have done at WP:Public art. The Frederick Keep Monument, for example, was designed and created by James Earle Fraser, one of the most important sculptors in early 20th-century American history. Besides, if you decide to delete these, you'll have to delete thousands of other memorials, monuments, graves, and statues that have been covered around the world. All of these can be expanded, primarily with offline resources (i.e. The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C.: A Comprehensive Historical Guide by James Goode, which is available, all 500 pages of it, and includes these works, at any DMV area library, but I haven't had time to check it out again). I apologize for being so frustrated, I just have been dealing with this every few months, for two years. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this post comes off angry, it's just, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse every so often about public art, nothing personal. This sculpture, being featured in the Save Outdoor Sculpture! survey, was selected, by the public (thousands of volunteers), as a notable work of art in Washington, D.C., and then documented by the Smithsonian. For me, my colleagues, and art historians who study public art, that makes this piece notable. I'll shut up now :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I looked through the WP:Public art project pages, but didn't see anything substantial about notability. While your assertion that "being covered by the Smithsonian Institution provides instant notability" seems plausible (and because I happen to know you have a great deal of expertise in the area), I'm inclined to agree that ultimately the article should be kept; but this would be a much easier discussion if there were clear notability guidelines written up somewhere (say, along the lines of WP:ATHLETE that we could refer to. Ideally, the first sentence or two should also convey some of that information as well, so the reader can quickly get a clear idea of why the artwork is notable as well. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help you work up a basic project page about notability and public art. -Pete (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We won't have time to develop these guidelines quick enough (nor do I have time this week) in order to keep this article. But yes, based on recent conversations with folks within the community, including Rick Prelinger, we desperately need to develop fine art notability guidelines for 2-D, 3-D and public artworks. SarahStierch (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest bringing this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts as this is an issue that comes up continuously. We have notability guidelines for artists but not works of art. The closest visual medium that has a guideline is films. A task force should be created to get this going as this is a recurring problem, both for notable works that are nominated for deletion but also for works that simply are not notable and criteria for deletion is vague at best (this is often the case for works for young living artists). freshacconci talktalk 01:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it too. The articles don't seem particularly notable to me (just a monument in a graveyard, with only one source discussing them in any sort of depth - I did a Google search which didn't turn up anything useful - of course, that isn't counting offline sources). But if an expert on the subject asserts that they are notable, then I suppose I must defer to their judgment.

The only remaining issue is that there isn't really much to say about these monuments. I tend to agree with Vejvančický above, who suggests merging these articles into lists, since I can't see these individual articles growing very much. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Jno. Williams, Inc. was a major American art foundry for a long time. If there is no article about them there should be. This is an example of their work - high quality work - and needs to be retained. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Not only did Smithsonian-trained volunteers select this work for inclusion in the Save Outdoor Sculpture survey of the early 1990s, but the institution has preserved information about the work for decades in its Inventory of American Sculpture and SIRIS database. James Goode's book, mentioned by SarahStierch above, includes more than 10 pages of information about sculpture in the Rock Creek Cemetery. Many users of the encyclopedia are reading the article, so I hope it can stay. Jgmikulay (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jgmikulay - I don't think there should be any problem putting together notability guidelines for various types of art, but that should be done first. Otherwise it just looks like "I don't like it." Smallbones (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge. Not much to say, but passes notability. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2011 (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.