Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivory carved tusk depicting Buddha life stories

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivory carved tusk depicting Buddha life stories

Ivory carved tusk depicting Buddha life stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Individual piece of art does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I'd propose a merger into National Museum of India instead, but realistically nobody's ever going to use this article title as a search term. Wieno (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by Nominator per proposal to move. Wieno (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The original objection to this article was notability. Discussions and views by various editors below seem to indicate that the general view is it is perhaps notable. The museum staff and gallery experts who supported the GLAM project think so and have given it pride of place centrally in the gallery. IMHO the object deserves presence as a separate article. Quite open to rephrasing the title to reflect the object better (please suggest). There is enough precedence of museum objects having separate articles. Arunram (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping it separate. The title is ok, though personally I'd add a disambiguatory "(National Museum of India)" or just "(Dehli)", though the MOS suggests not doing that - but these MOS rules are very bad in this area. One alternative might be: Ivory tusk carved with the life of Buddha (National Museum of India). Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am open to your suggestion to re title if that makes everyone comfortable. Thanks. Arunram (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - there seems to be plenty of coverage, though there doesn't seem to be an accepted English-language name for the piece which means nailing down coverage is a little harder. It is, however, mentioned in this article as one of the museum's feature pieces highlighted when the museum reopened in 2013. This article mentions it in the same way but includes a photo of it as the article's feature image. It's mentioned twice in this article about the reopening. It has also received coverage in this book. Again, coverage-locating is more difficult in this instance because nobody seems to have agreed on a name but that also suggests there should be quite a few sources in non-English sources given its apparent national significance. There's also a matter of it, as an art work, being of national significance enough so that it has been featured in an internationally-regarded National Museum. An artwork with that level of importance is probably notable, regardless of coverage. Placement like that in a museum like that is, effectively, significant coverage in my view - the Museum being a reliable source of information with regard to artworks of national significance. Stalwart111 07:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or repurpose Probably notable as an individual object, but this is much the fullest coverage we have of this long and important tradition of Buddhist iconography, and the material should certainly be kept somewhere. The object is really more significant as an example of a type than an individual, and the type is certainly notable. We have exceptionally poor coverage of the vast subject of Indian art, and it is very depressing to see (not for the first time) the few articles we have attacked in this way. There is far less material available online in English on objects in Indian museums as neither the museums nor Indian publishers put much online, and this needs to be taken into account. It could be repurposed into Iconography of the Life of the Buddha with few changes, and then later added to with other examples. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• If it was moved there it would probably be much easier to find as well. If you'd be willing to perform the move I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Wieno (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll give people 3 days or so to object, & if no-one does will move. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• No objection from me, for what it's worth. I think it should be kept but if the title changes to make it easier to find, that's fine by me. Stalwart111 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The focus of this article is the object. Perhaps Buddhist iconography is a separate article in itself. Would suggest renaming the title to reflect the object better. Thanks Arunram (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Object is of significance as it is one of the elaborate and intricate works on Buddhism in ivory. Inputs on this object have been provided by the museum's (arguably India's most prestigious museum) senior staff and department head Anamika Pathak. It was also covered as an object in the The Journal of Indian Art History Congress. The object is the central piece of the Gallery of Decorative arts in the National Museum. There is relatively little information in Wikipedia about Indian art and more specifically Ivory carvings which flourished as an art form for many years prior to the international ban on ivory. The challenge with most Indian art masterpieces is that there isn't formal name for the piece and is referred to by many names. The article was created as part of a WikipediaGLAM project with participation of senior museum staff with guidance from the departments. Some of you have also independently found mention of this object in sources. Other museums also have pages for some of their significant objects. I recommend we keep. Suggest we discuss and agree on a suitable name for the page/object. Arunram(talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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.