Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monument to Bulbul

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 merge to Bulbul (singer). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monument to Bulbul

Monument to Bulbul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article has only one source, a speech by President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, who is not a reliable source for anything. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete same sourcing issues nom identified are present in Russian, Azerbaijani articles as all appear to be translations of one another. There's definitely no English sourcing to be found, but I don't read either to confirm a lack of in-language sources. Imagine they'd be in one of the other articles if they existed. Shame we can't find anything in depth on the sculptor which might make it notable as a work of art. Star Mississippi 01:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/further integrate with existing section in Bulbul. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, added a good source^[1] from the Bulbul page (Azar news). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't pass the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The source I've added, solely about the statue, seems to give that test a run for its money. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you're not using rude edit summaries towards me, like another editor has been, when reverting me from his talkpage? then I'm cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are 6 links on the page in different languages. I see no reason to delete this article.--Rəcəb Həsənbəyov (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is something very strange going on with the dates on those sources. Archived in 2017 and retrieved even earlier, in 2014. All before the monument was erected. Before the article was written. How does that happen? Vexations (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The statue was unveiled in 2012 (31 October). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article, not the monument. In this diff [1] from 8 November 2021 Randy Kryn introduces a citation with a parameter/value pair of access-date=2014-03-01. Vexations (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article states near the top "7 November 2012 10:18 (UTC+04:00)", a week after the unveiling. Don't know why the various dates show up. I notice you've added the words "Before the article was written" in your comment after I'd answered, which clears up your concern, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, now I'm even more suspicious. You're not being entirely forthcoming about how you manage to access a source7 years prior to your involvement with the article. Honest mistake? Perhaps. An explanation would be welcome. Vexations (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above when I posted it on November 8, found it on the Bulbar page. Perhaps I should have linked the page: Bulbul (singer). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources that have been added after the nomination, were all published around the same time, on the day of, or immediately after the date of the unveiling: [2] 31.10.2012, [3] 01.11.2012, [4] 31 Oktyabr 2012, [5] 31 october 2012, 13:00,[6] 7 November 2012, [7] 01.11.2012. They're mostly identical. I rely on machine translation, but [1] contains a phrase that translates as: "This was reported by the official press". There is no original reporting. That is unsurprising, because Azerbaijan does not have a free press. It is also clear that there is no sustained coverage after 2012. Vexations (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't expect sustained coverage, it was put up and unveiled with handshakes and speeches. Then, as long as it wasn't vandalized or dragged down, or the site of a rededication or something, probably not much else would show up. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Notable works of art receive sustained coverage. They are subject to a critical discourse, they are studied, discussed and taught. Vexations (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ, especially when it comes to modern public statues. Perhaps should call in Another Believer, one of worldwide Wikipedia's sculpture artwork editors, who would have knowledge of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's WP:Canvassing. Vexations (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Could have just as easily put a notice on the WikiProject Sculpture page, which would have likely have reached Another Believer. We are differing on a notability question concerning sculpture, AB would probably know the answer. Pinging directly eliminates the round-about. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Then call everybody else who watches that page. Vexations (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the given reason for deletion, "Article has only one source, a speech by President of Azerbaijan" appears to be no longer true based on current state of the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards merge to Bulbul (singer)#Commemmoration, which already has the image and discusses much of what little there is to say about the statue. Its significance appears to be that it honors its subject, and its location and the dignitaries who turned out for its unveiling are relevant to the fame of the singer, not any particular artistic quality of the statue. BD2412 T 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BD2412. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob drobbs, may I ask why? A good source has been added, which makes the nomination language void, and the nominator seems, from the nom and the extended discussion in the cage above, to base much of their logic for deletion of a monument because a dictator unveiled the statue and gave a speech. Even though the singer died three months before the alleged dictator was born. BD2412 actually gives good reasons to Keep. The monument's notability stems from the iconic status of the singer and that it not only honors him in his hometown but very near his own home. What better place for a monument. As for not being a noted artistic piece, that seems irrelevant to keeping Wikipedia articles on monuments and other statues. There are probably hundreds of pages of individual statues which do not merit artistic greatness, university study, or professional papers. They just honor their subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended to the singer or his statue, but I think you largely answered your own question here: The monument's notability stems from the iconic status of the singer...

It's not significantly notable on it's own to merit a page, and it just makes more sense on the singer's page. A redirect should make it easy to find. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, I think what I gave was good reasons to merge. There is nothing to say about the statue that is not in the context of the subject. If all of that content is included in the commemmoration section for this subject, and the title redirects to that section, no information is lost for the reader. BD2412 T 01:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is called a portrait statue. There may be thousands, surely hundreds, of portrait paintings and portrait statue artwork pages on Wikipedia notable for being modeled after a well-known (or not so well known) person. The argument that the page should be deleted because the monument depicts a singer seems unreasonable in light of those precedents. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has proposed that the page should be deleted because the monument depicts a singer. Please don't misrepresent an argument made by another participant in this discussion. Vexations (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol (I only write that when I'm doing it). (still lol). My apology for being unclear. I don't think anyone wants to delete a nation's monument to a singer because he was a singer. What I should have said was simply that this is a portrait statue, the sculptural equivalent of a portrait painting. There are hundreds of articles on portrait sculptures on Wikipedia, why single this one out? Really don't know why you all want to delete it, that dictator reasoning takes the cake but I guess is as good as any. A good source has been found, the page is typical of its genre, and the singer sings on in sculptural form in a national monument very near his home. Nothing wrong or atypical in having a Wikipedia page about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on the topic of lack of clarity in your writing: "takes the cake" can mean both the best or the worst of something. Which is it? Vexations (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both, when experienced from different viewpoints. I view the dictator's involvement with the statue as tangential and has nothing to do with the artwork being kept or not kept. You, unless I'm reading your comments in this discussion wrong, would like to delete the page because the dictator spoke at the unveiling. Room enough for both opinions, but I doubt a Wikipedia guideline covers deleting dictator-approved-artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Vexations (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If so then again my apologies. Either way, good faith reasons for deleting this article maybe should be analyzed and compared to the standard article of such artworks and monuments on Wikipedia, into which it falls nicely. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bulbul as there only appears to have been a flurry of activity around unveiling then nothing, and nothing on the work of art itself ie. no analysis of its artistic merits, history/development of the statue. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Bulbul. As a founder and long-time participant in our WikiProject Public Art, it's best practice to usually discuss sculptures and public art about a specific subject (i.e. a celebrity) in the article about them unless it's an exception - tons of reliable secondary sourcing (not just brief press announcements about it being installed or unveiled), it's done by a famous artist, and so forth. I think this one is fine to mention in the singer's article. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. References are an example of WP:SBST -- effectively press releases about emplacement and unveiling of the statue etc.; really the topic of coverage is a routine event, not so much the statue as a work of art. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Have done some work on a merge, please take a look and improve the section, as Bulbar's monument seems destined for lesser Wikipedia glory. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 25 November 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.