Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mural of Marcus Rashford

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. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mural of Marcus Rashford

[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)

Just a painting on a wall that got vandalised because of the result.

WP:CFORK as all the information is already available at Marcus Rashford. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already appropriately covered in Rashford's own article. Might merit a separate article if it had received detailed coverage for anything other than being vandalised, but as far as I can see that isn't the case..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an artwork it's not notable in its own right, and is covered adequately in Rashford's biographical article. No need for a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not require a separate item; should be covered in the Rashford article. Eagleash (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The mural is not independently notable and is covered adequately at Marcus Rashford. – Pee Jay 11:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, not notable enough for a standalone article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marcus Rashford. Giant Snowman 14:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by creator: Woah, surprised to wake up to a string of delete votes. Rashford's article has 2 sentences about the mural, with a link to this entry, which seems like an appropriate level of detail for a large biography. I've expanded the mural entry a bit more and shared additional sources on the article's talk page. I notice most of the votes above are cast by editors who follow and focus on football content, which of course is fine, but ideally we'll also see some votes cast by editors who focus on public art and visual arts. I say keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, significant media attention at least in the last little while.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete, redirecting to Marcus Rashford seems like a better idea than deleting. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NOTNEWS applies Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Two separate pieces of sigcov in The Times and BBC from BEFORE the defacing. Seems to me like it's independently notable. Mlb96 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mlb96. The level of encyclopaedic detail in this article would also be undue in the main biography as it's not about the person but the notable artwork. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single vandalism incident doesn't warrant an article. I think that moving the relevant information from this page to the Marcus Rashford article and giving it a section of it's own would suffice. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about a single incident of vandalism though, it's about a notable artwork. The article was notable before the vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thryduulf, if someone had proposed the creation of this article before it was defaced, I doubt it would have been accepted. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Given that there are multiple examples of in-depth coverage dating from before the vandalism it would have met the GNG so there would be no reason not to have accepted it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know, I completely disagree with every delete vote, nothing is policy driven in the delete camp, nor have they truly considered the aspect of
WP:CFORK. The argument that the subject is not news, when clearly it is news because of the vandalism and aftermath, even the new york times picked up on the story, which points to the fact this isn't just local news. It's national news and has gone international. Nearly every news agency in the UK has picked up on it. Run a google search and tell me this article does not pass GNG... Seriously, if this gets deleted I might challenge that also. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- Please read the policy based rationales given when I nominated it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @
    WP:1E an event around a person. I believe you have miss-used this policy for an argument about the event of the artwork. I don't believe this applies what so ever. Is the artwork temporary? Are you discussing Rashford or the artwork, what about the creator of the artwork. The article lacks a little background about the artist. I don't see how you have truly assessed the article on its own merits. Govvy (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Yes it's in the news right now, because it was vandalised. Yes it got some news coverage last year when it was created. But I still don't believe that the artwork passes
      WP:GNG is wrong. So stop belittling other editors because you don't agree with them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @Joseph2302: Then show me one delete argument that cites a policy bar the nomination and not reflective of. Also Banksy is an example of, it's good to show where there are other articles like this that are kept. The Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba is a very famous piece by Claude Lorrain, yet, not many sources are there. Compared to The Last Supper by Leonardo, the articles should really be on par with each other. I find it very odd, that people choose to disdain a piece of art like this over something comparable like Art Buff by Banksy. I find this whole AfD rather bizarre. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it into the Marcus Rashford article. It's not like this article has a tremendous amount of detail. RedPatch (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (Not an assessment of sourcing or policy-based argument...) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'll tell you how famous this mural is—it came up in conversation recently between me and my mother, who have the least awareness of football that it's possible to have while being English.
WP:BLP1E. The article is sufficiently long that not all of the information can be merged into Marcus Rashford without exceeding length or due weight sensibilities, and it can definitely be expanded further. — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, now well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes
WP:GNG and not for one time event, a bit long to merge into Marcus Rashford. --SuperJew (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep notable mural, even pre-defacement. Glad to see it has a page now Lajmmoore (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable mural. Coverage of the unveiling is routine. The vandalism coverage is also routine. The description and it being vandalised can be included in Rashford's article. Dougal18 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National news coverage at its creation, and international news coverage after vandalism, easily makes for a significant piece of public art here on Wikipedia. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International news coverage, including from newspapers of record. And editor Mlb96 pointed out "Two separate pieces of sigcov in The Times and BBC from BEFORE the defacing." Meaning there was interest in this piece before the defacing and not just on the vandalism; there's ongoing interest here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant change has happened to this article since nomination. Widespread continued coverage takes this well past
WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I was doubtful about whether it needs own article rather than a section at Marcus Rashford's article, but I think the arguments for keeping it are strong and it meets notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage from before the vandalism. Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedic. Star Mississippi 15:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes
WP:GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:51, 23 July 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.