Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Events in the Life of Harold Washington

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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Events in the Life of Harold Washington

[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)

Dubious notability, no images, article itself is of rather poor quality. Issues have gone uncorrected for at least 12 years, based on the top message Sandcat555 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG with its sources. Needs some editing, and I've done a bit (thanks Sandcat555 for bringing attention to the page), but not deletion. As for the notability, Harold Washington was one of Chicago's most beloved mayors, and the downtown Chicago Public Library is named after him in tribute and honor. It and this mural are two of Chicago's several major commemorative remembrances of Washington. The page also gives a well-written and now edited background of Washington's impact on Chicago and an interesting summary and focus on the artist, Jacob Lawrence. This one seems an easy keep, and I've tried to improve it towards that result. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harold and his library namesake may be fantastic for all I know, but that changes nothing with this article. The majority of the page isn't about the mural at all, despite it being the title. Write a page about Washington, or merge this into something else, but keeping it as it is doesn't fix the problem. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem (eye of the beholder?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might not care about GNG, but this page does not in fact establish notability. I do believe it's also a problem to have more content and sources about a different topic than the actual subject of the article. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree completely with Randy Kryn - the article does well in explaining both the background of the subject as well as the artist's creation of the mural. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge The comments above do not appropriately address notability. It's rather absurd that more of the article merely summarizes the importance of Harold Washington rather than discusses the mural itself. This is a WP:REFBOMB – The only source for information about the mural is "Jacob Lawrence and the Making of Americans", used as cite 15 and 16. With that, it fails WP:GNG, as Washington being beloved and his background being well-written are utterly irrelevant. My search for sources only found brief mentions about the library's collections. Perhaps it can be merged to Harold Washington Library where it's located. I'm also surprised the article inaccurately states Lawrence painted the mural, when it's actually a tile mosaic. Reywas92^Talk 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ceramic tiles bit, painting on tiles is a recognized form of mosaic. I've added a city of Chicago governmental source about the mural (is that where you found it?) which includes its size, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that one. And even if this is notable, this and those other artworks can be covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You worded my view far better than I did myself. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search in Google books reveals it has received coverage from multiple reliable art and architecture publications. Unfortunately most do not allow to read the extent of the coverage but it seems sufficient to tip the scales. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those publications the mural has been referenced here (some have more in-depth coverage than others): City of Chicago, CBS News Best Murals in Chicago, Chicago Tribune before it was completed, Chicago Tribune one year later, The Chicago Public Art Guide, Chicago Reader, The New Yorker. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article needs to be improved. It needs to focus more on the mural than on the background. Content from some of the sources availible should be included in the article, but that is not a valid reason for deletion since notability can be established by the fact that there are multiple reliable sources with non trivial coverage independent of the subject (even if some of them can not be accessed online). Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of these links, 1 and 5 are identical but in different formats, 2 has less of the same info with nothing new, and 3, 4, 6, and 7 are briefest passing mentions with nothing useful to be used as a source. I'd be happy to accept offline sources but can you please indicate which appear to provide significant coverage? The results I see appear to be passing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG seems to have been achieved here in the accumulated sources. This is the mural depicting Washington in the main downtown Chicago Public Library named for him, probably the definitive artwork in Chicago of its popular mayor. Adequate sources are either on the page or exist, which is all that is asked for keeping such a page (especially for an artwork article). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS news article provides significant coverage and lists it as one of the best murals in chicago which is also a strong claim of notability by a reliable source. To a much lower extent, the same holds true for the inclusion in the Chicago's public art catalog. Information can be sourced from both of them. Together with the reference in the article the requirement from coverage from multiple independent reliable sources is already met. I can not know the depth of the coverage in the offline sources in the Google books search as their contents are not viewable, but the number of them and the type of publications provide additional evidence of notability so I see no justification for deletion even if the article should be improved. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the sources in the article and identified in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2024 (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.