Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sided Amphora 63.1515

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 Delete. The "delete" arguments are strongly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the "keep" arguments aren't. Several of the "keep" arguments amount to saying either that amphoras of this type are collectively notable as a class or that some amphoras are notable, not that this particular one is notable in its own right. Then we have "it gets 78 hits on Google": even if the number of google hits were a measure of notability (which it isn't) 78 would be a derisory number. Then we have a link to a book which gives a brief three sentence mention of the amphora, in a passage primarily about another one. It is not Bearcat who "seems to misunderstand the GNG". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sided Amphora 63.1515

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

Article about a museum artifact, which simply describes its physical characteristics. No indication whatosever is given here of what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article, over all of the hundreds or thousands of other amphoras that are held in other museums around the world -- and the only source here is one deadlinked entry in an online directory of museum accessions. As always, Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that exists at all -- but nothing here suggests or sources any reason why an encyclopedia should maintain an article about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article name makes an internet search unfeasible, and I would further imagine that anything which established the notability of this thing would in all probability be in an academic journal. But at present, the article's museum catalogue entry merely proves that it is of sufficient quality to be in a museum.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The academic interest in Greek vases has been so great that notability is effortlessly demonstrated (not necessarily online) for large numbers of them - see Corpus vasorum antiquorum (which is online). TheLongTone would imagine wrongly, and very clearly HAS'NT TRIED an internet search! "Boston amphora 63.1515" gets 78 hits, 76 relevant. To make such a confident and totally wrong assertion without trying is a bit pathetic really. This is doubtless one of the more important vases - yes if only because of the sex interest, it is actually pretty well known it seems. I will try to dig for info on this one - and a picture of course. The article is not very helpful in its present state, but that is at least as true of most of our articles on Renaissance paintings, and a couple of million on other subjects. Bearcat seems to misunderstand the GNG - there is so much published on Greek vases that thousands would easily meet it but, perhaps fortunately, there are only one or two editors who write such articles, and this is only our 29th. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. None of the hits I got had anyting of interest to say, and some were for snecking hotels. And try not to be condescending.TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Perseus and MFA references are substantive and satisfy general notability. Another potentially useful reference is Warren Moon's discussion of Boston amphora 63.1515, comparing it to Rycroft Painter works in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum: Volume 2, p. 62. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very surprising nomination. As highlighted by Johnbod above, works of this kind have been the subject of extensive scholarship, and this is a fine example. Also noting 24.151.10.165's recent, valuable, and source based additions to the page. Perhalps TheLongTone needs to think before he urges delete. Ceoil (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as this could've been accepted since it's at a museum, but there's simply nothing else either so it's unlikely this can be better improved as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 8 June 2016 (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.