Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture)[edit]

[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)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability - none of the sources in the references are indepth independent pieces about the artwork, they give the artwork a brief mention in writing about the artist. GRuban (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant work by a significant artist. Included by the museum in a group of "Highlights". Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to being in a museum collection and singled out as a "highlight", I've found a few sources that deal with this work in more than just passing. It seems that this work is important within conservation discussions and around ideas of original and copies in prefabricated artworks. "Do conservators dream of electric sheep? Replicas and replication", Louise Lawson (Studies in Conservation Volume 61, 2016), "Nothing but the Real Thing: Considerations on Copies, Remakes and Replicas in Modern Art", Lydia Beerkens (Tate Online Research Journal, Inherent Vice: The Replica and its Implications in Modern Sculpture Workshop, Tate Modern, 18–19 October 2007), and "Corrosion Intercept tent packing and handling system for Donald Judd’s brass and copper sculptures", Eleonora Nagy (Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Volume Six, 1999) all deal with this work in some detail. The article can be expanded with a discussion of conservation and considerations of what is an original, per those sources. As well, the book Furniture, Structure, Infrastructure: Making and Using the Urban Environment, Nigel Bertram (2013) mentions this piece. A couple of points: I don't believe that every work by a major artist should have an article and untitled works such as this are extremely difficult to find good sources on. I think in this case, however, a number of useful sources dealing with the work itself beyond a passing mention, and addressing topics that help expand the article, go a long way to establishing notability and satisfying WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT concerns. freshacconci (✉) 19:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they should, but they probably could - once the mongraphs get written. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:CRYSTAL. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To a Judd article. One has to ask how this untitled Judd work is different from one of the dozens of other untitled Judd works. WP Is not here to be a catalogue raisonné of every work done by an artist. We are just here for the notable ones. This one is barely notable, which is demonstrated by the lack of writing about it: if this really were a significant work by Judd, there would be, you know, significant writing about it. The artist is highly significant; not everything he made is notable.198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be included a museum's highlights collections, indicating the work is of some significance. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:39, 9 July 2018 (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.