Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bust of Hadrian

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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, as improved. There are unquestionably independently notable works of art, and there is consensus that this one meets the criteria to fall within that category. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Hadrian

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The British Museum has 13 million items in its collection, including thousands of busts and statues, what makes this notable? Like all Roman emperors, his likeness has been sculpted countless times e.g.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] – why is this portrait in particular notable? Notability is not established with multiple substantive independent sources, and we are not a catalogue of anything displayed in a major museum. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of those other statues have Wikipedia pages, and if they all did that would also be irrelevant. This one is sourced, it's in the British Museum, it was previously owned and displayed by a pope, and if Wikipedia changes criteria to say "If a subject of a sculpture or painting has too many real-world examples then none of them should have an article" I'm going to miss all of the countless statues (34) of Abe Lincoln. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in the British Musuem is irrelavant, since we are not about to declare its full 13,000 contents all notable by virtue of being there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The exhibition history now listed on the page gives it the prominence asked for, along with further sources listed on the British Museum webpage for the bust: Wegner (1956), pp. 15, 69, 101; Fittschen & Zanker (1983), pp. 50-51; Wegner (1984), p. 123; Evers (1994), no. 60. Cook 2013, nr. 296. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Sourced" is not and never has been the criteria for an article! WP:GNG requires "significant coverage", which the data by the exhibitor is not; it requires "independent" sources, which data by the exhibitor is not; and it requires a plural "sources", which a single source is not. The Vatican Museums likewise have tens of thousands of artworks, it's risible that any of the innumerable works owned by a pope is automatically notable. Entire exhibitions with hundreds of items likewise regularly go on tour, and being shown in multiple places does not make each one of them notable. Go away with your WP:OSE, if every one of the scores of Hadrian statues had multiple in-depth indepent sources like most of these Lincoln statues do then there wouldn't be a problem here. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a source for the notability of the object. It is from the British Museum page on its two-and-a-half year Treasures of the World's Cultures exhibition where this bust was chosen as one of the museums few treasured objects representing the Roman Empire. The museum, with its countless Roman holdings (probably countable, although a lot) deliberately chose this bust as a major artistic object which could adequately define ancient Roman art to the Asian nations visited by the exhibition. This exhibition of world cultural "Treasures" was divided into 13 sections, Roman art being one of them. That this artwork fit the criteria of such inclusion should, at a minimum, provide enough reason for Wikipedia to keep and expand this page. Statements countering the "other stuff exists" essay seem fine to use in discussions, reflected in the nomination mentioning that many other statues of Hadrian exist. Yet it just so happens that this one is identified as a world cultural treasure by the British Museum, and as such has rightly received, and should maintain, a Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This remains absurd. This exhibition of 271 "major artistic objects" includes "Biface", "Pair of Mosque lamps", and "Hammered gold pectorals". This exhibition is one of many such BM tours of deliberately chosen definitional artifacts. Absent further independent coverage, there is no automatic notability for such individual objects. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The biface, Mosque lamps, and hammered pectorals are representative. The Roman sculpture of Hadrian, being discussed here, is a specific work of art. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there are many similar objects is no argument for deletion at all. This has passed through three important collections, and the BM treats it as a "highlight" item. There will be masses of coverage in RS; most of it not online. The BM entry lists several publications, not all internal. Please don't use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts - that project is all but defunct - use the visual arts one instead. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, where in our guidelines does it say "any individual artwork in an important collection is automatically notable"? The publications listed include a "Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum", "A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, Vol. III", and "A Guide to the Graeco-Roman Sculptures in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 2 vols." There is no indication that this is such significant coverage that every object in the Museum should have its own article because it has been catalogued in several volumes. Reywas92^Talk 22:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Who has claimed that "any individual artwork in an important collection is automatically notable"??? You've made up this paper tiger. You're missing the important biblio references: "Wegner (1956), pp. 15, 69, 101; Fittschen & Zanker (1983), pp. 50-51; Wegner (1984), p. 123; Evers (1994), no. 60. Cook 2013, nr. 296. For example, Fittschen & Zanker (1983) is this, where this piece is discussed over 2 pages. Wegner (1956), where it is mentioned on three pages, is this. This is an important object, regarded by the BM as a highlight - it wouldn't have been taken all over the world if not. Your nom is based on a fundamental misconception. The very link you give from "his likeness has been sculpted countless times" actually says there are "150 surviving portraits of Hadrian…", so it seems it is rather easy to count them, and there is a huge literature doing just that, describing, comparing and analysing them. In fact only this and one other depiction have articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, mentioned! Can you read the Fittschen & Zanker book? As a catalogue it lists the thousands of objects of the entire collection without necessarily specifying notability of this item specifically, whose listing may just start at the end of one page and end at the start of the next. Your argument is that every single one of these 150 portraits would have their own articles, because Wegner mentions and catalogues all of them, with a one paragraph description and a listing in the index. You have the fundamental misconception that if a piece is catalogued in a book that compares hundreds of pieces it needs its own article. This book may cover a Depictions of Hadrian article! But no clear reason that this one in particular, out of the thousands of items selected as components of many touring exhibitions put on by many museums, is independently notable. Every museum has plenty of "highlights" but that does not bestow notability on them all. Reywas92^Talk 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you can't read it either, and have no idea how much coverage it gives it! Wegner is not a catalogue. More paper tigers - please stop attributing false arguments to me - what you call "Your argument" is something I've never said, & don't think. After 20 years of WP only two portraits of Hadrian have articles - you seem to be exhibiting paranoia about a flood that will never happen. Try to deal with the arguments people are actually making, rather than the ones you would like them to make so you can knock them down. Actually selection by the BM as a highlight is a pretty strong indication of notabilty - quite a number of the objects in that Chinese hits of the hits site have articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't seem to have access to it either, but from a review of Fittschen & Zanker: "The catalogue entries are state-of-the-art studies in imperial portrait typology. Even a meagre or battered Capitoline specimen elicits a full discussion and list of copies of its type. The entries are detailed, allusive, and often complex. They are primarily for the specialist who will require a formidable library to use and evaluate them fully. The authors are primarily concerned with getting the facts right—identification, typology, chronology—rather than interpretation. However, many entries contain much of wider interest: in particular, the entries on major or well-known pieces are recommended to all those interested in the visual presentation of imperial ideology—whether that of an individual emperor or of Roman emperors in general." doi 10.2307/300396 Vexations (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete. The sources in the article are unimpressive as they come from the museum and an exhibition. Find me academic articles or books discussing the bust and I will change my vote. Currently, it's just one artwork among many others in the BM, and it isn't enough deserve an article. T8612 (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several scholarly sources are given above, but they are shock, horror, not available online (and often in German too). Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep though probably Rename to Townley Hadrian or Bust of Hadrian, British Museum. Contrary to the claim of countless portraits of all Roman emperors, there are around 150 of Hadrian in existence, and this is almost as plentiful as it gets. Only Augustus has more surviving statue images. The Townley marbles are no less significant than those in the Elgin or Farnese collections. Each of the major works deserves an article of its own. A two-millennia-old artwork and royal likeness should too, especially one which has passed through two significant art collections, and was a founding object in the original collection of a third collection, namely the British Museum. I've much expanded the article now. GPinkerton (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:HEY and the good offices of editors like Johnbod and GPinkerton, the wisdom of this policy is now evident. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to User:GPinkerton's expansion. Curious to see if they'll move to Townley Hadrian. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. Was notable before too imo, but definitely more so since the article's expansion. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:51, 15 October 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.