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 WP:SNOW keep. bd2412 T 05:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Thomas Cass

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Statue of Thomas Cass (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)

Only one source; fails WP:GNG. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong and speedy keep (note: article creator). Did you even try a Google search before nominating for deletion moments after creation? I've already added enough text and sourcing to meet notability criteria. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a large number of sources that discuss the subject, although some are brief. The subject is a well known artistic object within a nationally recognized historic site. While good faith is not in doubt, the nomination appears to have been premature and done without due regard for WP:BEFORE. I would encourage the OP to withdraw their nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. WP:BEFORE does not seemed to have been followed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Coverage in the New York Times. AnUnnamedUser, please read WP:BEFORE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sourcing in this article was, to be frank, almost as bad as on the fictional characters, no-hit wonders, and professional puffery that normally populate AfD. To be fair, the NYT article is actually fairly extensive, both describing the statue and some of the circumstances surrounding its installation, but as referenced in the article it was impossible to access. It didn't even include such helpful things as a non-hidden version of the date of publish. I have fixed that. Nevertheless, one reference notability does not confer. I have, however, found sources ranging from Boston to Columbus Nebraska (which might be a re-print of a national agency) describing the statue, the process of its commission, creation, installation, and unveiling, and public reaction to it. Considering that I had to modify the search terms to find anything useful and that the sources in the article before I messed with it were all either bad or inaccessible, I think that excoriating the nominator for a lack of WP:BEFORE is out of line. Rockphed (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2019 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Statue_of_Thomas_Cass
No tags for this post.