Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKO Abiola Statue

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MKO Abiola Statue[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG its nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Ref 1, ref 2 and ref 3 are the only reliable sources I can see but its says nothing about the statue. Ref 4 and ref 5 is garbage. Ref 6 and ref 7 is an evidence that the statue exist like any other common statue in the world. The context of the article is about Moshood Abiola and nothing significant can be rewriting from the so called "statue to merit a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: First off, the article beats WP:COATRACK because it describes the structural description of the statue, the reason why the statue was designed and basic knowledge of who MKO Abiola is (for those who know nothing about him). Furthermore, references cited are inline, reliable and secondary. You should have a rethink about the nomination of the article. OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 07:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't expect anything different from a "Speed keep", "Strong Keep", "Keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their ridiculous articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. By the way, what do you mean by (1)" You should rethink of the nomination"? (2)references cited are inline, reliable and secondary? You probably do not understand the rationale for deletion. Do you? Wikipedia cannot have a stand-alone article for a subject simply because its exist. I think my rationale for deletion is clear enough. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously passes WP:V and WP:N. I also recommend that the nominator reads a public art contributor's notability criteria for public arts in 2012 for more insight. While there are other sources regarding this sculpture not cited in the article, the article is viable, irrespective of the sources provided. Besides, there are numerous public art stub articles with little or no sources that are notable in their own right. The sculpture is about a revered businessman and politician martyred in the course of Nigeria's democratic transition. I also suggest that the creator of the article upload an image of the topic for more clarity to readers. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is high time you learn to use wikilinks. That being said, neither you nor the article creator understood the notability guideline or WP:N and my rationale for deletion. Firstly, the a public art contributor's notability criteria for public arts in 2012 you pointed out is irrelevant as its neither a notability guideline nor common outcomes at AfDs. It's User:Slowking4 personal view of a sculpture's notability criteria and that has no place here on Wikipedia. Secondly, I don't see how your arguments differs from WP:EXIST. I remind you that WP:V of subject's WP:N is not the same as verifiability of subject existence. What am insinuating in my rationale is that, the sources available are insufficient to me WP:GNG and to write a standalone article. What we are having here is WP:COATRACK of Moshood Abiola. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done your research before questioning my recommendations? If you had, you would have observed that there is no specific notability criteria/guideline for Public art stubs in Wikipedia. Hence, I provided Slowking4's views which are more specific to the article and not too different from my own views. Notwithstanding, the article even passes WP:GNG which is a general notability guideline for articles in Wikipedia and it is not specific to public art articles. This article is not worth destroying in its early stages! Eruditescholar (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no specific notability criteria for it is an indication that it must pass WP:GNG. Is it too difficult for you to understand? However, I don't see how this one passes WP:GNG. Trust me, I won't engage in any further argument with you again because you won't stop getting it wrong (based on my past experienced with you), even if we put the entire policies and guidelines on your head, you will still be getting it wrong. I pointed you to wikilinks you refused to learn from it and I had pointed you to WP:Indentation for over 10 times yet you don't know how to use it. I just corrected your indent again. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, determining whether this public art article passes WP:GNG is left for other editors and the closing admin to decide. My knowledge of the use of wikilinks and WP:Indentation has got nothing to do with the purpose of this AfD discussion. If you have issues with me or my editing style, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it seems like it passes per Erudite's arguments. I don't see this as a Coatrack situation, as there is a much larger article about the subject of the memorial itself. It would be Coatrack if there were no article about the subject himself. I would also like to remind User:Wikicology to maintain Wikipedia:Civility Theredproject (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that I was a bit blunt here but I apologized to Eruditescholar on their talk page that same day. That being said, I don't see how this article passes WP:GNG. The fact that there is an article about the subject himself does not give his statue a freebie article on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:42, 7 September 2015 (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.