Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American (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) —Theo polisme 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American (statue)

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

Non-existent possible future sculpture by non-notable artist. Per WP:CRYSTAL, an individual event should only be included if it is almost certain to take place. As one can see from reading the article itself, this is not the case here. There's nothing to show for this but a website and a series of postponements for more than five years. I think the community has waited long enough to see if this was going to pan out. A few news stories about how it might someday happen are not sufficient to make it notable. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination reflects a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL; this article isn't about a future event, it's about a project that has been the subject of substantial coverage over a period of years and is thus notable, whether or not it ever gets built. Notability is not temporary, and what's more, the project is still getting coverage: I've added two news stories from 2012 about recent developments. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The event is the actual building of the statue. I agree that notability is not temporary, but this was never notable in the first place. We gave it some time to let things work out, and they didn't. No statue exists, and (as the stories you added state) they don't even know what city it's supposedly going to be in. The article is essentially an advertisement for a 2004 fundraising campaign that never amounted to anything. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- compare with the also non-existent Statue of Responsibility-- WP:CRYSTAL is simply not in play here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that CRYSTAL doesn't apply here; That section of the policy even specifically states that works of art need to be notable on their own merits. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of WP:NOTABILITY. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words it's WP:clearly notable? Man, I guess maybe it's been a year or two since I nominated an article for deletion, but is this really the state of AFD discussions these days? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an argument that waiting a little bit longer considering the renewed commitments, especially financially, would suggest that the unlikeliness of this project moving forward was only due to the issues of funds which seems to have been resolved. Enough notable third party sources indicate that this project is still a go. The amount of development content in the article further contributes to the case against WP:CRYSTAL. Mkdw ^talk 00:07, 15 December 2012 (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.