Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urns (Indianapolis)

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 delete. Secret ^account 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urns (Indianapolis)[edit]

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

Precisely the same situation as the article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Wellhead. Like the antique wellhead, this article appears to be part of a project to create articles about virtually everything in the owning museum's collection, without regard for whether the pieces are works by major artists (although some are by major artists) or are otherwise notable. They're ordinary urns, and the article says essentially that nothing is known about them before they arrived on the property where they're currently located. This title can be redirected to the museum article, but I don't see it being a very valuable search target. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The museum acquired the property in 1967. Hence it's owned these limestone urns for at least 45 years, but hasn't seen fit to bring them in out of the weather. The "Condition" section of the article says that freezing temperatures were identified as causing damage to these works. Acid rain also damages limestone. I think their continued use as garden ornaments implies an evaluation of their importance. This may be more suitable as part of Oldfields#Grounds and gardens than as a stand-alone article. —rybec 03:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Nothing is known of the maker or origin of these two urns." The fact that they have been left outside despite cracks due to weather/temperature changes indicates they are not considered important enough to preserve or valued enough to protect from theft. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Oldfields#Grounds and gardens. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2013 (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.