- 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) intforce (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SHARKS! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"SHARKS!" is an installation of five fibreglass sharks that was commissioned for a UK art festival. The local council did not like it, and the sharks got removed. Another council gave the sharks a home.
Regarding its notability, I consider this an event as it was for a festival, and the coverage of it was largely about its removal. As an event, I don't think this is an event of enduring significance. Additionally, the scope of it is quite local. Yes, there are some good sources. However the event of the five fibreglass sharks being placed in the river, and then moved to another place, is not an enduring nor notable thing.
Per WP:EVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including... "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Does an installation of plastic sharks in a river qualify as a "water cooler story", or a "viral phenomena"? I think yes. (By contrast, see Split Pavillion for an example of a public artwork that was removed, but has a clear enduring significance.) All in all, I do not see the enduring significance here. --- Possibly (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn --- Possibly (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the reasoning I gave here; basically, I think it passes the GNG. PJvanMill)talk( 16:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reasoning provided by @PJvanMill.
- On the point of WP:GEOSCOPE, which is for events not artworks, @Possibly has said that it is quite local, but could that not be said of most sculptures or visual art installations?
- The comparison with Split Pavillion is a good one and in my opinion would actually be a precedent for keeping the article, rather than removing. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoanokeVirginia:Split Pavillion was a permanent work that cost something like 500,000 , and became extremely well known in the area over something like 7 years before it was removed by the city. It generated citizen-led campaigns, bumper stickers, meetings, public consultations, lawsuits and plenty of in-depth coverage in newspapers and books on public art (e.g. this and this). SHARKS! might be headed in that direction, but it has a ways to go. --- Possibly (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would question the relevance of the cost of producing an artwork in assessing its notability, unless the exceptionally high or low cost are a feature of the work's coverage.
- I don't doubt that Split Pavilion exceeds the standard for WP:NOTABILITY. But WP:WHATABOUTX warns that Delete discussions should avoid comparisons like this. A work of art could exceed the standard of notability without having coverage in the same way as Split Pavilion. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {[re|RoanokeVirginia)) Sure, I guess my point was that Split Pavillion had very clearly entered the canon of controversial artworks considering all the terrific sustained coverage. "Sharks" might be on that road, but we will have to wait five years or so to see.--- Possibly (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoanokeVirginia: alright, that RBJ journal is really excellent coverage that transcends geoscope-- nicely done finding it. I'll withdraw the nom but I'll continue to wonder if this is enduring or not. --- Possibly (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you @Possibly, and thank you for your contributions to maintaining Wikipedia's notability standards. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure that this particular installation has received sustained coverage, but the Antepavilion appears to be an ongoing concern of the Hackney Council, who have apparently object to just about anything the Antepavillion does. There is probably more (sustained) coverage of that. Maybe there is material for a (new) article about the Antepavillion that this could be merged with. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for reasons outlined by others Orayzio (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; looks like this is going to remain, but I'd like to note that there are other potential reliable sources (art and architecture magazines) which have not yet been cited (though this page has developed significantly in the last few days), plus the CGP Grey video (which I assume is why this article was created). RexSueciae (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; There is continuing litigation and planning enforcement action that will remain a public focus. Sharks! is likely to continue to generate traffic to the wikipedia entry and coverage in the media. The coverage will extend to further characters in the story beyond Hackney Council: Islington Council, Canal and River Trust. The installation is groundbreaking for its engagement of multiple public authorities and thus has a rare direct political component for a public art installation.Antepavilion (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (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.