Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing Horse

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Horse[edit]

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

While a very beautiful and fine specimen of a Tang dynasty tomb figure, I question whether this particular "Standing Horse" is individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are many examples of standing horses from Tang dynasty tombs, so it is not unique as an object. I am not saying the horse is not notable, but I am saying it is not notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, especially when there is already Tang dynasty tomb figures with a lede image of two more standing horses... Mabalu (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a ridiculous argument, showing complete lack of understanding of how our notability policy works! Imagine saying: "While a very beautiful and fine specimen of a painting of the Virgin and Child, I question whether this particular "Virgin and Child" is individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are many examples of paintings of the Virgin and Child, so it is not unique as an object. I am not saying the painting is not notable, but I am saying it is not notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, especially when there is already Virgin and Child with images of many more Virgin and Child... ". Nom says "I am not saying the horse is not notable" - WELL DON'T NOMINATE IT UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT! As with everything else it depends on independent sources on this individual horse, which the nom does not attempt to address. This article is very strange, as it used to be 10 times longer, but the sole editor cut it down for some reason. I have restored the longer version, and moved it to a better title. Articles on individual works are a very useful supplement to by type articles. This one joins several others in Category:Chinese ceramic works. It's pity the picture was non-free and has been deleted, but another one could be uploaded to Commons. NOTE TO CLOSER: The article contains much well-referenced background material, which could well be reused elsewhere. This should be saved somewhere if the article is deleted. Ping me first please. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - When I saw the article, it had been cropped down, and I had noticed that the creator had removed a ton of text which looked like it had been copied and pasted over from elsewhere on Wikipedia, because it seemed very improbable that a brand new editor could produce work of such high standard and quality practically off the bat - not impossible, but it definitely looked copy-pasted (and then the deletion just looked like they had tried to remove what had been copied from elsewhere. I don't really understand why an editor would go to all this trouble and then just randomly delete so much hard work unless there was something very odd going on. I did a basic search to see whether this particular horse was notable, such as a Google search for '"Standing horse" Tang NGA' in Books and didn't see that it had received much commentary or coverage (only four books came up) Even less hits came up when I substituted Canberra for NGA in response to your page move. While I see what you are saying, this individual artwork doesn't seem particularly notable in itself, although the article could certainly be a general overview of standing horses from the Tang dynasty. However, since you are so impassioned in your defence, I bow to your experience and withdraw the nomination. Mabalu (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree it is odd - I asked them on their talk-page a few days ago. To me it looks like a student piece, but it doesn't seem to be part of a class effort or assignment. I'm pretty sure it is not copy-pasted, either from WP or a book, partly because it is not all that well-expressed, and the (rather good) sources it uses. I wrote the main Tang dynasty tomb figures, & it's certainly not from there. Sadly, Tang dynasty art has nothing like this much detail. The formatting etc is actually very quirky & I can believe it is a first-time effort, maybe posting an essay for college etc. Perhaps they were worried that by posting it they would get caught by plagiarism checks, which I believe can be an issue. Anyway, they released under the licence terms, so can't "retract" it. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 3 May 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.