Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

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. There is a clear consensus against deletion; the discussion on whether or not to merge with Rick Kirby can continue elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)[edit]

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: notability of the artwork has not been established by cited sources. A local newspaper discusses the artwork in one article, but this single source alone is not enough to establish notability. The other sources either do not mention the artwork, or are not independent of the artist, or are not discussing the artwork beyond a single mention in a list of works by the artist, or are a local public artworks catalogue: all cannot establish the notability of this specific sculpture. I couldn't determine one source from an architecture website, but it is a source for information not directly about the artwork. I discussed the issue on the talk page, but the notability warning kept being removed without the notability being established by the cited sources, so I believe the article should be deleted. Editør (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Note this is not the article Sutton Hoo helmet. – Editør (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as article's author): It's a big artwork by an important artist (Rick Kirby) that received press coverage both when unveiled and subsequently, and that 100,000 people walk underneath every year. Editør's description above also glosses over the sculpture's published in a 2009 book on artwork in Norfolk and Suffolk, terming this a "local public artworks catalogue", when in fact the sculpture is given detailed coverage there. Pinging Serial Number 54129 and Yoninah, who have previously weighed in. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously explained on the talk page, a catalogue of local public artworks does not automatically establish notability of an/every artwork in the catalogue. – Editør (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no real need for this information to be in a separate article and not on Kirby's page. To demonstrate how it would fit, I merged all the relevant content from this article into the Rick Kirby article, you can examine this diff to see how it looked. Note I undid my edit since there is no current consensus for a merge. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prince of Thieves, thanks for the suggestion. I believe that a separate article is preferable, however. The article as it stands contains parts relevant to both the Sutton Hoo article, and the Rick Kirby article; Editør's original suggestion (now apparently abandoned) was to merge it with Sutton Hoo. Yet in either article much of the information would be irrelevant. Placed in Sutton Hoo, the "Themes" section about how the sculpture fits into Kirby's oeuvre would be inappropriate, and placed in the Kirby article, much of the "Background" section would be tangential—not to mention the disproportionate weight that would be given there to a single one of his artworks. As an article by itself, it is a short, self-contained article able an important and cool sculpture. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a sculpture of the famous helmet and not in itself notable, the refs all relate to the actual helmet and not the sculpture. Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Szzuk, five references relate directly to the sculpture: Ipswich Star 2002, Cocke 2009, Cocke 2013, and Axle Arts 2015a/b. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ipswich star is about the museum and briefly mentions the sculpture, Cocke 2009 is nominally about the sculpture but mostly talks about other things, I can't access Cocke 2013, Axle Arts is a sales catalogue. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Szzuk, Cocke 2009 contains two detailed pages about the helmet. I'm happy to email it to you if you send me a line. I would point out that the inspiration for the Ipswich Star article is the sculpture's arrival at the visitor centre, and that the additional detail in Cocke 2013 serves to contextualize the artwork. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't disagree with what you've said but think the refs are weak. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion here: Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)#Notability. – Editør (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied that information below - it is relevant to this discussion. Szzuk (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Editør (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've copied the discussion below from the articles talk page. The nom for this AfD has comprehensively rebutted all of the references included in the article. Szzuk (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The notability of this artwork is not evident from the cited sources. — Editør (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editør, any reason why Cocke 2013, and the various contemporary sources about its installation, are not enough? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For each reference:
1: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture
2: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture
3: sales catalogue, not independent of the artist, does not establish notability
4: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability
5: does not mention the sculpture
6: does not mention the sculpture
In general, local newspapers can vary in quality and reliability, while some are dedicated to indepentent journalism, others will directly print press releases as articles. I don't know the Ipswitch Star and looking at the source I don't immediately see any issues, but in my opinion this source alone is not enough to establish the sculpture's notability. If no additional sources that establish notability can be found, maybe the relevant content can be moved to the paragraph about the visitor center in Sutton Hoo? — Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some new sources have been added, but the new sources are about (the background of) the visitor centre, not the sculpture that is the subject of this article. As such they cannot establish the notability of the sculpture. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editør, does the new section "Themes" address your concerns? It addresses the sculpture in a way that could not be covered in the Sutton Hoo article, relating it both to the actual helmet, and to Kirby's work. Re: the first two sources you mention above (Cocke 2009/2013), I'm not sure where your statement comes from that they cover "all" public sculpture, not just that which is sufficiently notable. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among the cited sources I see no improvement in terms of establishing the sculpture's notability:
1. Cocke 2009: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork
2. Cocke 2013: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork
3. Axle Arts 2015a: gallery tweet, not independent from the author
4. Ipswich Star 2002: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability
5. Worsley 2003: does not mention the artwork
6. National Trust: does not mention the artwork
7. Architects' Journal 2000: published 2 years before the artwork was made
8. Dawson 2002: undetermined, because I have no access
9. Kennedy 2002: does not mention the sculpture
10. Axle Arts 2015b: gallery catalogue, not indenpendent from the author
11. Cocke 2013: see 2
12. Williams 1992: published 10 years before the artwork was made
13. Bruce-Mitford 1972: published 30 years before the artwork was made
14. Williams 1992: see 12
15. ArtParkS: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability
16. Bath Contemporary: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability
I am putting back the warning and I am going to nominate the article for deletion, so others can weigh in. – Editør (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been around since 2006, and now its deletion seems appropriate? We may as well keep the discussions separate—(as I see it) Kirby is notable by himself, Sutton Hoo Helmet is notable by itself—but the proposed deletion of Rick Kirby seems more like an attempt to prove a point about this sculpture than a critique of Kirby's notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rick Kirby. It's unclear without studying the sources more closely whether Kirby is notable, but it seems certain that if he only has one sculpture worth writing about in detail, it's unnecessary to have two articles with substantially duplicated content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colapeninsula and Prince of Thieves, I don't think that Sutton Hoo Helmet is Kirby's most notable sculpture; I'm sure that articles could be written about others (Hands, for instance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but—as someone interested in Anglo-Saxon helmets, and as a major contributor to the Sutton Hoo helmet article—I just happened to find this one interesting. Merging Sutton Hoo Helmet into Kirby's article gives it a disproportionate weight compared to the rest of his works. Further, Colapeninsula, if you wouldn't mind taking another brief look, I don't think that much of the content is duplicated—it was, but that was only because Prince of Thieves copied over the content without waiting for a consensus to merge (in lieu of that consensus, I have reverted the edit). --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. This is t not necessarily a major work, and much of the coverage seems to be about the visitor center, of which this is only a part. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cas Liber. I agree also that merging with other articles, either Kirby or Sutton Hoo, would lend it disproportionate weight, given the amount of material in the article. Ericoides (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously merging would require some copyediting first. — Editør (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — How do Cocke 2009 and Cocke 2013 establish this artwork's notability? Obviously the reasoning that any and all artworks described in a catalogue of local public artworks are notable isn't valid. And if, as I have argued, these sources cannot establish the artwork's notability, which sources are able to do so (together with the local newspaper Ipswich Star 2002)? — Editør (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is that provided the catalogue is independent and reliable, its perfectly usable. Perhaps citing the policy which discounts this source? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Independent and reliable means they are appropriate sources of information, but given the type of work it doesn't say anything about the notability. — Editør (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to expand on that, the clear point is that all independent reliable sources count towards notability per WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all independently catalogued artworks are automatically notable in the context of Wikipedia, which would follow from the argument that the catalogue entries establish notability this artwork (which they do not). — Editør (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you look at the list of cited sources (that was pasted above), there is just not enough there to establish notability. There is one local newspaper article and that's basically all there is. Half the sources don't mention the artwork, the other half aren't independent from the artist or don't have significant coverage of the artwork. The article Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) should be deleted, after some of the content might be merged into Rick Kirby or Sutton Hoo#Exhibition. — Editør (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My prefered option is probably still to merge with Rick Kirby. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2018 (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/Sutton_Hoo_Helmet_(sculpture)&oldid=1068839222"