Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statues of Andranik Ozanian

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 '. Since the content appears to have been Merged already, the AfD is redundant. Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of statues of Andranik Ozanian[edit]

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

I get Lenin, maybe Stalin too. But it's really not that special that a country and a couple of exile communities would erect a bunch of statues of its national hero (Ozanian), or that another country would put up a group showing its former dictator (Aliyev), especially when that guy's son is the current dictator. This isn't a topic of any special significance: at most, in the "legacy" sections of their respective articles, we might mention the statues' existence. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Not very notable but notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give us pointers to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the topics of statues of Andranik Ozanian and statues of Heydar Aliyev? I see some coverage of individual statues, but nothing for such statues in general that suggests these list topics are notable. --Lambiam 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turkey is full of statues of Atatürk, Syria of Hafez al-Assad, Romania of Mihail Eminescu, Bulgaria of St George slaying the dragon and of Vasil Levski, Greece of Alexander the Great. Most American cities of a certain size have a Lincoln or a Washington. Now, certain of these individual statues may be notable, and the fact that the people in question are honored with a plethora of statues is also worth mentioning in their biographies, but as Lambiam indicates, the phenomenon of Ozanian or of Aliyev statues does not appear to have attracted much notice as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both – It may be that not all of these are of high artistic value, but then again, we even have an article for the Monument of Lihula. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. What is at issue here is not the value of the statues, but whether these lists meet our notability criterion. It requires significant coverage by reliable sources, which thus far has not been shown to exist. If the topic is not notable, the articles should be deleted. The artistic value is totally irrelevant (unless these statues are collectively so esthetically painful that that by itself has attracted the attention of reliable sources). --Lambiam 06:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LIST suggests that a list page, unlike a normal article, does not need to be notable to justify its existence. Lists can be used for information or navigation. We can rule out the latter in this case, as the individual statues are not notable enough to have their own pages. Thus, the question is whether the page represents useful information, and unfortunately I believe we are at the point of individual opinion rather than policy. I believe that this topic is not sufficiently important to justify its own page and that some of the more important statues should be mentioned in a ==Legacy== section of the subject's article. I asked myself if I were saying this out of xenophobia, and the answer is no, I would not want an article on statues of Abraham Lincoln either. There is an article Depiction of Jesus. This is considered a notable and scholarly topic in its own right; besides, there are at least 150 paintings alone which have their own articles. Ma^t_chups 14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the notability guideline, in the section Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, offers more guidance than that:
  Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
  --Lambiam 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to read the remainder of that section, which clearly states that there is not a consensus to apply it to all lists, particularly for "list of X of Y" lists as this one is. If the subject of these statues was not himself notable, then there would be a problem because the list would be unrelated to any notable subject, but that's not the case. If the list were entirely contained within the biography article, you'd obviously have no notability argument, and the fact that this is formatted as a separate standalone page purely for size concerns really shouldn't change that. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Our notability guidelines are about whether a topic can have its own article and are therefore obviously not usable as an argument against including article sections. Still, I think the list as originally in the main article was a clear case of listcruft; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Lambiam 09:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the respective main articles or delete. There are no sources indicating that the topic of these men having statues has by itself received any significant coverage, which causes the articles to fail WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 08:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have little difficulty finding significant coverage of such statues and that's in English. I suppose that there will be even more coverage in the native languages. The worst case is that we'd merge into the main articles about these people and that is not a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I think someone merged and redirected during this discussion, which shouldn't really be done. That being said, it fits really well as it does in the article it is in now, and I see no good reason as to why it should be its own separate article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect / keep I already merged Andranik's statues list and it looks nice over there. Same could be done with Heydar Aliyev's statues list, but I think it can be kept because there are more than 50 (my estimation) statues of him, not only in Azerbaijan, but also in other countries and will sure be erected more in coming years, as long as Ilham Aliyev's (his son) dictatorship continues. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2012 (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.