Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replicas of Michelangelo's David (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replicas of Michelangelo's David[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Replicas of Michelangelo's David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article on David Replicas fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. There are multiple independent sources, but they do not contribute to the coverage of the replicas as a whole but instead the individual replicas by source. The sources also do not seem to provide "significant coverage" as one from the Victoria and Albert Museum is about an element related to but not the replica. The next from the Smithsonian appears to be a catalog listing, which provides support for the existence of a replica but no reason that it is notable. The daily titan article seems more appropriate for an article on college traditions rather than replicas. Additionally the daily titan does not appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source. Lastly none of those sources are independent of the subject. Swimmtastic (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - and I think this is the first nomination - or where is the link to the first? Get real - subject is notable. Why on earth are the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Smithsonian or the Los Angeles Times not WP:RSs, or independent? The article has not been around long & more sourcing will no doubt be added, though much of the content comes under Subject-specific common knowledge. Add tags if you like. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The V&A page references the V&A's own replica. This hardly seems independent.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: above delete by nom. Ty 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The V&A replica itself has been published in enough books and catalogues to arguably warrant an article on its own, as has the replica in front of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. The sources, I'm sure, will be added eventually. I admit, the California State University, Fullerton student paper is probably not of the highest caliber, and I only copied it over from that article to provide a source for this newly-added topic. There is plenty of third-party, peer-reviewed, properly published information on the major examples, though, so I don't see any reason for not letting the article grow. Besides, it was split out of an article that is growing too large, so this process will inevitably repeat itself. --Stomme (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - This seems like an odd article on its own. Was the replica section of the original David article so long that it needed to be split off? It seems that swimtastic is arguing that because the source is the museum and the museum has the replica, that makes them not independent. The smithsonian link has information about a replica in Buffalo, so I don't know why that's not independent or reliable. I didn't see anything wrong with the LA times, except that the article emphasizes the number and placement of the replicas. Overall the sources of information look good and are getting better, but I think I share with swimtastic a lack of understanding of why the replicas are notable. Just because there's information about them doesn't seem to justify inclusion. Maybe this article needs writing about why the replicas are of significance. --15stamps (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It would be hard to think of any subject related to the study of such a world-renowned artist as Michelangelo that was not inherently notable and worth keeping. I think we can sleep safely if we take it that the level of scholarship of a national museum such as the V&A can be relied on. Ty 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Many great works of art have been reproduced extensively. It would be hard to think of all of the replicas of any one work, even created by a world-renowned artist as Michelangelo, as being inherently notable and worth keeping. The scholarship of the V&A is not necessarily in question, but the manner in which the reference is used which is not in keeping with the alleged notability of replicas. The article is primarily about the fig leaf and the associated discomfort with full frontal male nudity. --Swimmtastic (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is important to note the fact that there are other Davids out there. It also prevents articles for those replicas from popping up and being contested. Kevin Rutherford 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete because the other Davids out there aren't all notable. If some of them are then they can pop up and be contested. If they are contested, then there are procedures to determine if a consensus is reached and whether or not to keep them. Let them be tested on their own.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Tyrenius. I don't see the problem...Modernist (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If you don't see the problem, then say why you don't see it. --Swimmtastic (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. As the article points out, there are a variety of reasons for making a replica of Michelangelo's masterpiece, ranging from study by students of art, to tacky tourism. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What do the reasons for making a replica have to do with whether or not the article should be deleted? Tacky tourism or studying, these reasons are relevant to an article on replicas in general, but not to the notability of this article.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not entirely sure that mixing up genuine copies (sometimes to replace an original removed for safekeeping), plaster casts (for other museums), and tourist replicas is the right approach, but the article is good enough to stand on its own for now. For the 19th century practice of taking plaster casts, see Cast Courts (Victoria and Albert Museum). For another piece of sculpture, even more widely copied and cast, see The Thinker: "More than any other Rodin sculpture, The Thinker moved into the popular imagination as an immediately recognizable icon of intellectual activity; consequently, it has been subject to endless satirical use. This began in Rodin's lifetime.". It may be possible, one day, to do a large overview article on sculpture replicas and popular culture and tourism, and these subsections should be seen as a step along the way to that sort of article. Sometimes the layout of a topic in a series of article, or an article title, is not immediately apparent, and a bit of mellowing under the wiki-process is needed. Nominations for deletion tend to disrupt (or accelerate) that process, depending on your viewpoint. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, one of those irregular verbs - I have a genuine copy, you have a plaster cast, he has a tourist replica! Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And people probably pay different amounts of money as well! My genuine copy was made by a world famous artist. Your plaster cast was comissioned by a respected museum. His tourist replica was kitsch mass-produced in a factory... Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2) I was going to say about Carcharoth's post - excellent points, very well thought through. Ty 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Be bold and create a large overview article on sculpture replicas and popular culture and tourism. As per Carcharoth, let this nomination for deletion accelerate the process.--Swimmtastic (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The David is an icon, a joke, a symbol, and a bunch of other things. This article needs to be here. If anything should be removed (opinion) it is the deletionists who insist on wasting hours of editors' time and then forcing us through this sort of process. Look at the vote. No one in favor of deleting it? One undecided? ( i just removed a possibly offensive section of my post and apologize to anyone offended.) Thanks for pointing out The Thinker, that's got me thinking about . . ... all sorts of stuff. Carptrash (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The David is an icon, but replicas are not. The section on replicas in the David article should be expanded, and linked to a list of replicas. The notability of the replicas listed comes only from the notability of David.-- Wiki11790  talk  15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FYI, the article was split off from the David article because the previous is getting too long. I am a little bit concerned that the two "delete"s and the one "undecided" are all from accounts created within the last two days with no history of involvement in visual arts topics. --Stomme (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • re:Comment - I am concerned that all of the "keeps" are from accounts created more than 1 year ago with extensive history of involvement in visual arts topics. Is it possible that those with experience editing arts articles are developing a bias? Seems awfully similar to the Union of Concerned Scientists.--Swimmtastic (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, even worse, might know something about the subject! Can't have that on WP. Anyway, from a quick look at his talk page, Mandsford does not seem a visual arts specialist. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been cutting my own toenails for years, you could say that I'm an expert and know lots and lots about my own feet. Lets make a WP article about my left middle toe. I could take a picture of it like User:Stomme did for the "Reduced-scale copies of David in Los Angeles, decorated for Christmas 2005". No conflict of interest there.--Swimmtastic (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your feet are not world famous icons, so the comparison is not helpful. We welcome free images for use on articles: there is a distinct shortage of them. Everyone is welcome to contribute to an AfD debate: the closing admin will review the strength of the arguments presented. Those editors with a particular interest in visual arts have, in my observation, been extremely conscientious and balanced in their AfD decisions (and article contributions, including featured articles), as well as knowledgeable, in a way which has helped greatly at times to reach the right outcome. I see no cause for concern there. Also check out WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT. Ty 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, either as its own article or folded back into the main 'David' article. The number of reproductions says something significant about the popularity of the statue, and the reasoning in the nomination doesn't make any sense to me. --Lockley (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Numbers don't define notability. Lots of things have been reproduced in varyingly large quantities, that doesn't inherently make them notable. What specifically about the nomination doesn't make sense and why?--Swimmtastic (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll leave it to others to see if the nomination paragraph makes logical sense to them. Speaking of numbers, though, that the nominator has voted nine times during this discussion so far. The nominator is reminded that large quantities of votes does not make his opinion inherently more valuable. --Lockley (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left some advice on Swimmtastic's talk page about the !voting. Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on multiple deletes by nom. Multiple "deletes" by nom struck through. Ty 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmmm it seems that Swimmtastic has a total of 21 edits, ...21 edits..and a lot of complaints. Something is very wrong here, and fishy to say the least...WP:AGF says everything is ok except the nom doesn't seem to respect any other editors opinion except his own....Modernist (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Replicas_of_Michelangelo%27s_David_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138294800"