Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)/Archive 1

Notability

The notability of this artwork is not evident from the cited sources. — Editør (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editør, any reason why Cocke 2013, and the various contemporary sources about its installation, are not enough? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For each reference:

1: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture

2: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture

3: sales catalogue, not independent of the artist, does not establish notability

4: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability

5: does not mention the sculpture

6: does not mention the sculpture

In general, local newspapers can vary in quality and reliability, while some are dedicated to indepentent journalism, others will directly print press releases as articles. I don't know the Ipswitch Star and looking at the source I don't immediately see any issues, but in my opinion this source alone is not enough to establish the sculpture's notability. If no additional sources that establish notability can be found, maybe the relevant content can be moved to the paragraph about the visitor center in Sutton Hoo? — Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some new sources have been added, but the new sources are about (the background of) the visitor centre, not the sculpture that is the subject of this article. As such they cannot establish the notability of the sculpture. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editør, does the new section "Themes" address your concerns? It addresses the sculpture in a way that could not be covered in the Sutton Hoo article, relating it both to the actual helmet, and to Kirby's work. Re: the first two sources you mention above (Cocke 2009/2013), I'm not sure where your statement comes from that they cover "all" public sculpture, not just that which is sufficiently notable. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the cited sources I see no improvement in terms of establishing the sculpture's notability:

1. Cocke 2009: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork

2. Cocke 2013: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork

3. Axle Arts 2015a: gallery tweet, not independent from the author

4. Ipswich Star 2002: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability

5. Worsley 2003: does not mention the artwork

6. National Trust: does not mention the artwork

7. Architects' Journal 2000: published 2 years before the artwork was made

8. Dawson 2002: undetermined, because I have no access

9. Kennedy 2002: does not mention the sculpture

10. Axle Arts 2015b: gallery catalogue, not indenpendent from the author

11. Cocke 2013: see 2

12. Williams 1992: published 10 years before the artwork was made

13. Bruce-Mitford 1972: published 30 years before the artwork was made

14. Williams 1992: see 12

15. ArtParkS: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability

16. Bath Contemporary: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability

I am putting back the warning and I am going to nominate the article for deletion, so others can weigh in. – Editør (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]