Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (Faces)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Faces)[edit]

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

Places researched are listed on the talk page, with no information found on the actual art or the artist. In addition, the majority of the information regards the actual sculptures and their location seems to be from original research, in contradiction of the rules on original research in Wikipedia. The references given on the page only refer to the building, or the building materials and not the pieces of art themselves. Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting consideration for deletion. The editor who started the article listed places on the Talk page where research was conducted to find out information; however, it seems little beyond two sources were found.

I'm very unclear about the difference of defining something as it exists in reality and verifiable through images versus original resources.

Rather than simply delete this article, it seems that it should more naturally be asked for further research and further thought given to the original research argument.

Finally, I'm unclear as to the argument for deletion of this article. Miyagawa has made a variety of claims related to the notability of this article, all of which I do not understand.

I'm looking forward to hearing a good discussion about the deletion of this article.

This deletion tag should be removed.

Thanks --Richard McCoy (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable, with no prejudice against changing !vote if reliable, non-trivial references can be supplied. I see no reason why every piece of art and sculpture is inherently notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those references do appear to be both reliable and non-trivial. I'm a little troubled by Dylanfromthenorth's completely subjective decision making in regards to deciding what sculpture is notable. --Richard McCoy (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sculptures are essential elements of the building itself, as documented in referenced sources. Jgmikulay (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a variety of articles discussing plazas, sculpture gardens and memorials on Wikipedia. This article includes secondary sources discussing the plaza (thus, notability) and describes the art. If the issue persists, I suggest a name change focusing on the Plaza, rather than full deletion. HstryQT (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename I would support restructuring the article to concentrate on the plaza, including the faces as one part of the article. Makes more sense to me now than simply throwing away all the work. In addition, should that be done, then the sources become primary sources rather than secondary as they seem to be referencing the plaza rather than the faces. Miyagawa (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (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.