Blueprints at Addison Circle: Neat-looking, but not widely discussed in secondary sources other than a single article in the local newspaper; most other Google search results point to people or companies which had something to do with its creation, or run-of-the-mill "Things to see in Addison" travel guides.  The article has seldom received more than 1-2 daily page views.  Good candidate for merging with the Addison, Texas , page.  Carguychris ( talk ) 00:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  Carguychris ( talk ) 00:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Texas .  Owen× ☎ 00:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sourced article from The Dallas Morning News (a major U.S. newspaper characterized in the nomination as a 'local newspaper') added to other sources, including an article in Sculpture magazine.  Meets GNG.  I almost missed the image of the impressive sculpture, have to scroll the image to the right for viewing, but have added another image.  Designed by notable sculptor Mel Chin .  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whatever you want to say about the reputation of the DMN , it is nonetheless the local paper for Addison.  Mangoe ( talk ) 05:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the two refs added to the article today.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , while @ Carguychris makes a good point about WP:ROTM, the structure is quite impressive and distinguishes it from something "ordinary".  Definitely is something notable to keep on Wikipedia.  Noorullah ( talk ) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's an entirely subjective evaluation of the subject not an evaluation of the provenances and depths of the sources documenting the subject.  Notability is not fame nor importance .   Our subjective opinions of fame and importance do not count, and Project:fame and importance was rejected in 2004.  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noorullah seems to be commenting on and disagreeing with the reasoning in the nomination, the essay WP:ROTM , and not the sources (which now are adequate to provide notability).  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC) * [ reply ] Question.  Does someone know if coding exists to make the large image scan from right to left instead of left to right?  The page topic, the statue, can only be seen in the large image by scanning way over to the right when it probably should be the image seen at the start of the scroll.  It's pretty nice when you get to the 'reveal' though.  Thanks.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Randy Kryn , perhaps just create a new image file by cropping out the rest of the panorama.  The other stuff is irrelevant.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  But I've never created or uploaded images here.  Besides, the entire panorama is descriptive of the park and area, and hopefully everybody scrolls over because coming upon the statue is quite the surprise after not expecting anything like that.  Certainly not a run of the mill piece, the sculpture would enhance the art heritage of any major city in the world.  Addison, Texas is lucky to have it.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 23:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Randy Kryn : you can use {{ wide image }} with the dir=rtl parameter, as in this edit .  Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 14:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Caeciliusinhorto-public , it looks pretty good.  A nice artwork (both the sculpture and the panorama).  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge to Addison, Texas I'm just not seeing the notability here, but it's a prominent enough local landmark to warrant inclusion in the city article.  Mangoe ( talk ) 05:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep satisfies GNG.  Djflem ( talk ) 21:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I don't quite see GNG being passed here.  I don't really mind the Dallas newspaper article, though I agree it's in a routine (monthly) column and that the fact it has a large readership doesn't make it any less than a local paper, but I don't see any other coverage which looks sufficiently independent and it is almost written in a combination of WP:NOTTRAVEL /overly matter of fact sense.  It can be adequately covered on the city's page and doesn't need a stand-alone article.  SportingFlyer T · C 07:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The text cited does not seem to apply ("Travel guides: An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.").  Where does it mention anything about landmarks in the city to which the citied guideline refers.  Adding it to the Addison article would make that article more "travel guidy", wouldn't it?   It is a substantial work of art and landmark in its own right.  The matter of factness is presents the facts about the sculpture and the vision of its creator as an article about a work of art should.  Djflem ( talk ) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think there's enough GNG-calibre sourcing regardless, it's just an oddly written article to me.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Merge and Keep.  The article has seen a lot of editing since its nomination, a review of sources would be helpful for the next potential closer.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:41, 12 January 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus