Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods

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 and cleanup. – Avi 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods

Moved from Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection by original author as a result of the debate. I am cleaning up the AFD page and have nominated the resulting redirect for deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR--Dpplx 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete They're very nice, but they don't deserve a separate article from the main Korean Pottery article - Richfife 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm changing my vote to keep. The creator is obviously very motivated to make a good article and has the tools to do it. Good luck! - Richfife 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't DeleteThis article allows students of the art and the study of Korean history and pottery true examples to evaluate the different periods of development in Korean pottery from ancient times. The generosity of the of the author's family allows students to include unique photographs of a collection in reports and presentations on the subject. This article enriches this resource of information on the subject. Deletion from Wikipedia will lessen the archive value of this encyclopedia. It would be a loss for Wikipedia. Deletion would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVCOL (talk • contribs)
  • Reply A couple of things: The article is Vanity in that collection was made by a relative of yours (Father? Grandfather?), so posting it on Wikipedia serves to indirectly raise your profile. That isn't fatal to an article by any means, but... it immediately raises the spectre of objectivity issues. There are a LOT of pieces from a perstonal collection in the article. Are the pieces notable? How do we know the captions are correct. I know YOU know, but I don't know myself. Which brings us to the biggest issue of all. The article is named "Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection". Is the Colaianni Collection a notable collection? Is it better than, say, a collection I would find in a museum in Seoul or New York? My instinct is no, but if I'm wrong, we'll need to see some backup. You've posted an article with your own last name in the title. That's throwing up a lot of red flags. - Richfife 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified (and probably unverifiable) catalogue of an unpublished private collection. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep, but serious rework needed. See comment below. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, little more than an image collection, and what little text there is violates WP:NOR. JIP | Talk 10:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete(one vote to a customer)...a Final Rebuttal in response to the above comments...The article does have value. FIRST: If the title is of concern then it can be changed...the change would be Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods. This is an important lesson in the study of Korean pottery because each period in Korean history had very distinctive style of pottery. This page clearly demonstrates the differences. SECOND: Is this collection verifiable? Yes. All pieces have been evaluated and appraised by JOHN GILMORE FORD, ASA, Senior Member,American Society of Appraisers, Baltimore Maryland. All captions that are associated with the photographs are excerpts from his evaluation. Sotheby's of New York is aware of this collection. Two pieces from this collection were published in its catalog, KOREAN WORKS OF ART, JUNE 5, 1992. The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is reviewing this collection for display. THIRD: There is enough text to cover two pages if you look at the information contained in the captions under the photographs. I can move those captions to the main page if necessary. FOURTH: The question about "better" collections being in Seoul or New York; with the title change, they would be welcome to edit the page and contribute to the wealth of Wikipedia as well. Please note, I have already added to the References at the bottom of the page in question.
  • The appraisal is unpublished, therefore unverifiable. The two pieces published in Sotheby's catalog are a different matter, but you don't identify which two they are. I think this article needs serious rework, possibly into a set of articles by period, including commentary only from published sources. Since deletion prevents rework, I will change my non-vote, with the understanding that I may support a renomination if the article remains a collage. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Either merge with the main Korean pottery article or rename to something like Gallery of Korean pottery and keep; or failing that transwiki the images and text to the Commons. Frankly, articles about the arts invite a gallery style treatment. These examples are a valuable contribution, and a way should be found to keep them somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Korean pottery. What is the bar for verifying that photos in Wikipedia are what they say they are? I expect that many (most) of our photos (and other images) would fail verifiability. If these are what they say they are, they should be merged into the main Korean pottery article. If we want to demand verifiability of images, we'll need to dump 90% at least of the images in Wikipedia. The Photon 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say that there are three distinct issues for verifiability an image of an artifact: does the image fairly represent the type of artifact described? Is it of an actual artifact as opposed to a reproduction, mockup or a manipulated image? Is the described provenance correct? Readers can perform the first by comparing to copyrighted pictures from reliable sources, which should be cited for the supporting text. The second we really can't verify, unless a major publication takes an interest in the authenticity of Wikipedia images, so we have to take on trust. The last issue was raised by the title: absent a published catalog, how do we know there is such a collection or what it contains? Renaming the article reduces the vanity aspect of the provenance, and so makes it more of a legal issue (is uploader entitled to grant a GDFL license for that image?) than a policy one, and we pretty much act on faith there too. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My plan is to rename the article as mentioned before to Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods. That should correct the vanity issue in the title. I also plan to expand the text as recommended by Robert West. My concern about merging with Korean Pottery is that I would not like to make such a drastic change to an existing article that is already so well presented. The interest taken by all, in the effort to make Wikipedia an endeavor of value is appreciated. I do have a full time job and therefore need a little time to update this page. What time constraints are we dealing with? User:MVCOL
    • Now that there is clearly no consensus to delete, there is no time pressure. Take the time to do a good job, and others will probably pitch in. Most of us have lives, whatever Wikitruth may say. <grin> Robert A.West (Talk) 03:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I will do my best to update this article to conform with Wiki standards.....I've already changed the title........I appreciate the opportunity.User:MVCOL
• Delete - as OR. There is a good article on Korean pottery. Those parts of this article that can be sourced can be addedin there. This seems to be an advert for a private collection. The name of the collection on each image is also unencyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment BlueValor has a point about labelling. The collection name has to go from the images. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then the images have to go too. - Richfife 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • GDFL Comment The attribution on the image seems to me to be part of the copyright of the image, and hence should not be removed in order to protect the permission to use under the GFDL. With the article title changed, hasn't the issue been significantly blunted? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - the attribution on the image is independent of the Licence as shown by the fact that hardly any images, elsewhere on WP, carry it. In any case Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document. If the image could not be freely modified then it would not be acceptable on WP under this licence. If the authors decline to modify the images then other editors can and should. The change of title does not address the sourcing issue - the article remains OR - nor the vanity aspect of having this unencyclopaedic attribution on every image. BlueValour 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... I have no doubt that we could, under the GDFL, add a clown cap to any of the images. On the other hand, Wikipedia is clear that it views history as something that we should preserve under the GDFL. I was viewing the on-image credit as akin to that. I suppose that, so long as we have the original version in history, and retain the description of the source of the image, we are fine in that respect. That said, you or any editor can boldly modify the image, so I don't see that as a reason to delete the images. As for the OR issue, and whether the article can be made non-OR, that requires comparing the sources to the content at a level that is beyond my expertise. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Apropos whether credits on the image are encyclopedic, my print copy of the Britannica 14th edition includes images with just such an embedded credit, and I think that publication qualifies as an encyclopedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I stand corrected - Richfife 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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.