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. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gate to the Northwest Passage[edit]

Gate to the Northwest Passage (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)

Insufficient independent reliable source coverage to warrant a separate article. The only mentions are in books and are brief and mostly in passing with the bulk of them being passing mentions in various editions of travel guides and walking tours. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Note: I created the article.) This subject passes the notability threshold (a nice little article can be created from the sources already used plus the following):

The City of Vancouver Public Art Registry source alone provides specific information about the sculpture (including dimensions, measurements, artist statements, reception, etc.) Even better if we can find original sources for the quote by the curator of the Maritime Museum and the Globe and Mail article.--Another Believer (Talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems that the bulk of the above references amount to passing references and original research. For instance, in the two Canada.com links the only mentions are respectively, "Simms, clad in a thong and socks, was found hanging from the Gate to the Northwest Passage sculpture in Vanier Park." and "That investigation began when shady stock promoter Caldwell Simms was found dead, hanging from the Gate to the Northwest Passage sculpture in Vanier Park. He was clad only in a thong and socks." In case someone might think they should then search for a murder involving the artwork, those two mentions (and the entire links for them) were a sunday serial thriller - hardly a reliable independent source to establish notability. The racns.co.uk source is a non-reliable source database listing. The Vancouverbiennale listing is just an art guide where the artwork is given small reference, along with dozens of others. Nothing to suggest notability. The Conexaocultural is a similar listing of numerous artworks, with nothing to suggest specific notability. Overall there is nothing to suggest this artwork is anything notable, and at best could be included in a broader article about artwork in Vancouver. I notice there are several other similarly non-notable artworks currently with their own articles such as: Aerodynamic_Forms_in_Space, Digital_Orca, Girl_in_a_Wetsuit, LightShed, The_Birds_(sculpture), The_Drop_(sculpture). Perhaps the best solution would be to merge all of those into a single article such as Public_art_in_Vancouver? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Each of the works deserve their own articles. Though I think there is enough material for a Gate to the Northwest Passage article, this is the article in the bunch with the least amount of information available. The others are certainly notable! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that could work - merging it to the park. The sculpture certainly does not seem to have enough independent reliable source coverage to establish notability for its own article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the Public Art Registry is a reliable source. I am not sure why "original research" tags keep being added to the article. I have removed them once and plan to remove them again. Please help to improve the article by discussing changes on the talk page. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is long enough to stand on its own and should not be merged to the park article. The park article just needs to be expanded further. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't confuse people; whether or not trivia is added to the article is largely inconsequential to whether or not it is deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 16 July 2013 (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.
More