Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunar Society Moonstones

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. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Society Moonstones

[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)

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham. A WP:Before search wasn't very helpful to find GNG-level sources. There were a couple of attempts to convert this to a redirect, but they were reverted. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~A copyright problem? The Lunar Society page on the Moonstones seems a word-for-word copy, although I have no idea which is the chicken and which is the egg.~~ - struck, it seems they copied Wikipedia and not the other way around. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham; emphasis on the lack of encyclopedia-worthy sources, copyvio issue, and gallery-like format/structure, looks like a page more fit for something like TripAdvisor or a travel blog. Spiritual Transcendence (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to keep per the recently-added sources Spiritual Transcendence (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no copyvio - the article predates the alleged source, which plagiarizes us. This is a significant public artwork and landmark by a significant sculptor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have added a good source and, per Pigsonthewing, the artwork's and sculptor's significance are apparent. Glad there is no copyright, although the website giving credit to Wikipedia writers for its textual presentation would be nice. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have today written to them asking that they do this, as required by the CC licence used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their article is now correctly attributed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is now. What's the actual policy-based argument for deletion? Btw, a simple "redirect" is wrong here, if there is nothing at the target article. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was implicit, but maybe I should have been clearer. The article didn't meet WP:GNG (since it was unsourced), and in my opinion, still doesn't meet the GNG criteria of having multiple independent RS. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if deemed appropriate Redirect as nominator suggests. The article references are 'interesting'. The Lunar Society one is a circular reference to this Wikipedia article. The Public Sculpture of Birmingham book was published in 1998, yet the article states the sculpture wasn't unveiled until 1999. No page number has been placed in the citation. The reference seems to me 'suspect'. I've gone through the book and found nothing on these stones. In fact, the Introduction to the book begins with "Birmingham in 1996 has over 370 works of sculpture in the public domain" and adds that "the pieces date from 1709 to 1996", suggesting the material included only went up to 1996. I've checked for later editions of the book but haven't come across any.

Until appropriate sourcing is added to the article or put up for consideration in this AfD, the policy based ground for deletion is that the article doesn't pass any notability guideline. Rupples (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Comment The related 2005 book Public Sculpture of Staffordshire and the Black Country does mention them as "the Lunar Society Monument designed by Steve Field in Great Barr, Birmingham (1998)" as part of the entry on Michael Scheuermann (p. 284). I agree that I don't find a mention of them in Public Sculpture of Birmingham (at least the version available via Internet Archive). There is by the same author a Birmingham Sculpture Trails book (2008), which may discuss them, but I can't locate a copy to review. I did turn up two local newsclippings[1][2] from when sculptures were unveiled. There were other 2011/2012 stories about development in the area that mention the stones in passing. Beyond that, I do see mention of them in the context of the people memorialized on them (for example, in Secret Black Country, no page numbers, but with a photo of the Keir stone), they're included in local heritage tours, and they have been mentioned by the Birmingham Conservation Trust. These are clearly verifiable and appear to be at least locally notable, even if gold-standard sources aren't readily turning up. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2023 (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.