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) (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Williams Carter Wickham (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)

This is one of a number of articles on statues which were created because they were taken down or vandalized in the recent protests, and I've picked it more or less at random as a representative. The problem with all of these is the same: the statue itself isn't notable as a statue. Its notability, such as it is, exists only as an after-death biographical detail. I would not object to the judgement that these articles should be merged back to the subjects of the statues' articles, but seeing as how hardly any of these say much more than what is already said in their subjects' bios, I don't see having them as stand-alone articles. The argument that they are all in the news now I will anticipate with the observation that the subjects of these protests are the figures these statues represent, and that is by and large their only quite derivative notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). Article should be expanded, not deleted. Start with the Save Outdoor Sculpture! entry, then search books and newspaper archives. A public Confederate monument erected in 1891 and removed because of connections to racism? Notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really think a better response than this is called for. This precisely fails to address my last comment. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe I'm just saying the topic is notable. I'm working to expand the article now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep people, please use common sense before nominating artworks that have been in the public sphere for 129 years. It is a safe bet that lots of people have written about a work in that time span, as is the case here. I saw lots of Google books entries and have added a few to the article. The current news coverage is not a one-time thing on these sculptures, in fact it tends to cement their notability when paired with the other 129 years of coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, much work has been put into the page since the nomination 44 minutes ago, and the article is now a fine Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Monroe Park as WP:REDUNDANT. Content and images already fit well there, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every statue and the text of every plaque. Content in the news about a statue does not mean that even if it's deemed notable, it must' have a separate article, per WP:NOPAGE. "People, please use common sense before" creating separate articles on every item when the information can go elsewhere just fine. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have only found a few of the available sources for this article; there are presumably many more in print. What I meant above is that after 129 years the story runs deep, and merits its own article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ThatMontrealIP. There's more to add, and I disagree with Reywas92 that the content could easily live in the park article without skewing the page. You copied over some, but not all, of the detail we've already added to the sculpture entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ITSOLD? And between construction and removal it was merely present as a feature of the park, and it should be covered in the context of the park, along with the statue of Joseph Bryan, the marker for George Washington, the Archenima artwork, the WWII Memorial, the Lee Cross, and McGuire Bench. So put these hypothetical sources in the main article and split when actually warranted. There are so many thousands of statues, sculptures, and other artworks, both outdoors and inside, they do not need separate pages on the basis of their existence (or removal), and sources do not mandate their own articles when there is a main article that should have the content. Reywas92^Talk 03:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This statue is arguably a lot more notable than the park it is in. We should have articles for artworks that are independently notable of the park, gallery or museum that houses them. That is why we have separate articles for The Louvre and for the Mona Lisa, to use the most cliched example.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then?? Give me a break. We should absolutely have content about artwork that is notable, but there is no requirement it be on a separate page. My original edit to the main article had all content except the space-taking formatted inscription. Reywas92^Talk 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments reminded me of this Jenny Jolzer plaque. It really needs its own article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are books about this and other such statues: An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments; Discovering Richmond Monuments and so they are notable. The current wave of iconoclasm adds to this notability. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: The topic is clearly notable, even the subject of at least two postcards. The article includes material specific to the statue. Leutha (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, with the addition of sources article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a yet another statue but the one which was relevant before the recent controversies. desmay (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is the statue of a notable . . ....... loser, done by a notable artist. I would be happy with the article even if the statue was not torn down. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (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.