338:- When I saw the article, it had been cropped down, and I had noticed that the creator had removed a ton of text which looked like it had been copied and pasted over from elsewhere on Knowledge, because it seemed very improbable that a brand new editor could produce work of such high standard and quality practically off the bat - not impossible, but it definitely looked copy-pasted (and then the deletion just looked like they had tried to remove what had been copied from elsewhere. I don't really understand why an editor would go to all this trouble and then just randomly delete so much hard work unless there was something
343:
response to your page move. While I see what you are saying, this individual artwork doesn't seem particularly notable in itself, although the article could certainly be a general overview of standing horses from the Tang dynasty. However, since you are so impassioned in your defence, I bow to your experience and
237:. It's pity the picture was non-free and has been deleted, but another one could be uploaded to Commons. NOTE TO CLOSER: The article contains much well-referenced background material, which could well be reused elsewhere. This should be saved somewhere if the article is deleted. Ping me first please.
342:
odd going on. I did a basic search to see whether this particular horse was notable, such as a Google search for '"Standing horse" Tang NGA' in Books and didn't see that it had received much commentary or coverage (only four books came up) Even less hits came up when I substituted
Canberra for NGA in
204:
While a very beautiful and fine specimen of a Tang dynasty tomb figure, I question whether this particular "Standing Horse" is individually notable enough for a
Knowledge article. There are many examples of standing horses from Tang dynasty tombs, so it is not unique as an object. I am not saying the
374:
has nothing like this much detail. The formatting etc is actually very quirky & I can believe it is a first-time effort, maybe posting an essay for college etc. Perhaps they were worried that by posting it they would get caught by plagiarism checks, which I believe can be an issue. Anyway, they
227:
What a ridiculous argument, showing complete lack of understanding of how our notability policy works! Imagine saying: "While a very beautiful and fine specimen of a painting of the Virgin and Child, I question whether this particular "Virgin and Child" is individually notable enough for a
Knowledge
365:
Thanks! I agree it is odd - I asked them on their talk-page a few days ago. To me it looks like a student piece, but it doesn't seem to be part of a class effort or assignment. I'm pretty sure it is not copy-pasted, either from WP or a book, partly because it is not all that well-expressed, and the
232:
with images of many more Virgin and Child... ". Nom says "I am not saying the horse is not notable" - WELL DON'T NOMINATE IT UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT! As with everything else it depends on independent sources on this individual horse, which the nom does not attempt to address. This article is
233:
very strange, as it used to be 10 times longer, but the sole editor cut it down for some reason. I have restored the longer version, and moved it to a better title. Articles on individual works are a very useful supplement to by type articles. This one joins several others in
228:
article. There are many examples of paintings of the Virgin and Child, so it is not unique as an object. I am not saying the painting is not notable, but I am saying it is not notable enough for a standalone
Knowledge article, especially when there is already
173:
295:
255:
167:
315:
126:
275:
133:
99:
94:
205:
horse is not notable, but I am saying it is not notable enough for a standalone
Knowledge article, especially when there is already
103:
86:
17:
234:
188:
155:
283:
263:
64:
55:
405:
367:
206:
40:
149:
384:
356:
327:
307:
287:
267:
246:
218:
145:
68:
279:
259:
60:
401:
36:
195:
181:
90:
380:
323:
303:
242:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
400:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
371:
352:
229:
214:
161:
82:
74:
376:
335:
319:
299:
238:
120:
348:
210:
394:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
375:
released under the licence terms, so can't "retract" it.
116:
112:
108:
180:
209:with a lede image of two more standing horses...
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
408:). No further edits should be made to this page.
366:(rather good) sources it uses. I wrote the main
256:list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions
370:, & it's certainly not from there. Sadly,
316:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
194:
8:
314:Note: This debate has been included in the
274:Note: This debate has been included in the
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
294:Note: This debate has been included in the
313:
276:list of China-related deletion discussions
273:
253:
296:list of Visual arts-related deletions
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
235:Category:Chinese ceramic works
1:
425:
368:Tang dynasty tomb figures
207:Tang dynasty tomb figures
397:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
385:14:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
357:13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
328:13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
308:13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
288:11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
268:11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
247:13:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
219:17:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
69:16:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
330:
310:
290:
280:Shawn in Montreal
270:
260:Shawn in Montreal
61:Shawn in Montreal
59:
56:non-admin closure
416:
399:
372:Tang dynasty art
347:the nomination.
293:
230:Virgin and Child
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
53:
34:
424:
423:
419:
418:
417:
415:
414:
413:
412:
406:deletion review
395:
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
422:
420:
411:
410:
390:
389:
388:
387:
360:
359:
332:
331:
311:
291:
271:
250:
249:
202:
201:
138:
83:Standing Horse
77:
75:Standing Horse
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
421:
409:
407:
403:
398:
392:
391:
386:
382:
378:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
337:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
396:
393:
344:
339:
224:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
168:free images
402:talk page
50:withdrawn
37:talk page
404:or in a
345:withdraw
127:View log
39:or in a
377:Johnbod
336:Johnbod
320:Johnbod
300:Johnbod
239:Johnbod
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
349:Mabalu
211:Mabalu
146:Google
104:delete
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
381:talk
353:talk
340:very
324:talk
304:talk
298:. –
284:talk
264:talk
243:talk
225:Keep
215:talk
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
196:TWL
125:– (
52:.
383:)
355:)
326:)
318:.
306:)
286:)
278:.
266:)
258:.
245:)
217:)
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
379:(
351:(
322:(
302:(
282:(
262:(
241:(
213:(
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.