Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shaman (Hansen)

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaman (Hansen)

[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)

Could find no other coverage of this beyond the capitol grounds website. Even searching the artist's name and shaman just brings up various other shaman-related sculptures. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been in the state capitol collection since 1971, as recorded here. Although I don't know how this represents a Shaman. A state capitol collection is notable for that fact alone - the artwork, owned by the entire state, was selected for the purpose of presenting credible sculptors and their work to the state as a whole. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a niche SNG I'm unaware of, "being in a state capitol collection" does not confer notability. Secondary sources are always needed to establish notability. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Changing from ~~Merge~~ based on coverage found on newspapers.com.) The sculpture itself is not notable, but the sculptor who made it is. There is a very brief stub on the sculptor James Lee Hansen that could use improvement. Merging the content about this sculpture into that stub would be a win-win alternative to deletion. The sculpture itself fails WP:GNG and is solely sourced to the non-independent commissioning organization. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somebodyidkfkdt None of those links work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they should be fixed now. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice, good catch; withdraw. My apologies! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and nominator's withdrawal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2025 (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.