# Talk:Statue of Industry

The article states the statue was seen in 1931, but that was 90 years ago.  What happened to it?  Was the site closed after the company went out of business?  Did a later inventory or map show nothing where the statue was?  The article should at least say something about that. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

All valid questions, Piledhigheranddeeper. The reason the article does not say anything about the post-1931 history, however, is because I haven't found any sources discussing it. You should feel free to take a look too if you wish; there's a book (Arcs, Sparks & Engineers) on the history of A. Reyrolle & Company that is in my list of things to track down, and it's possible that libraries in Hebburn might have additional ideas. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
If it's not there now (sorry, I can't pop over and have a look—too many time zones involved), there might be something to the effect of "Most of the Reyrolle Works site has been closed; the statue's fate is uncertain."  Something to tie it up. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the {{primary sources}} template from the article. The sources we have are simply the sources we have; while every article would benefit from multiple lengthy and well-researched books on the subject, this is a rare luxury. Though most of the sources used here are contemporary newspaper articles, there is nothing suggesting they are unreliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with JoelleJay here. It's not a question of whether the sources are reliable, it's about avoiding original research. Per WP:OR: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The only secondary sources in this article are those used to support the background information, and none of them mention the statue. If there are no secondary sources about the statue, that's an indication that the topic isn't notable. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose adding the tag. The use of newspaper sources seems fully appropriate to me. What specific areas of the area do you think are OR? I don't see what purpose slapping a badge of shame on this article would serve, especially given it's already been through a peer review process. The article is currently a good article nominee, I think it would be better to make any comments on sourcing there - or if there's a genuine concern over notability then feel free to nominate it for deletion. ITBF (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I thought about this, and I don't think the primary sources tag applies-- the newspaper reports are reliable for what they cite, and carefully used. Because this is, in my eyes, a sub-article of North East Coast Exhibition, and is too long to reasonably be merged in there, it doesn't make sense to nom for AfD. Eddie891  Talk Work  19:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Old newspaper articles reporting local news are most definitely primary... Four-sentence blurbs like "The Statue of Industries...was tarred and feathered last night" are non-significant breaking news, not secondary analysis. It doesn't matter that it's reliable for what it says; per policy, such sources cannot be the basis for the article. And beyond that, almost 100% of them are from 1929, with the author above admitting they can't find later coverage; this strongly suggests a 1E situation. The fact is that no one else has seen the statue or its defacing as deserving of in-depth retrospective commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I've again removed the banner. This article passed a good-article review, and the reviewer addressed the sourcing above. Continually slapping a cleanup template atop the article accomplishes nothing—let alone when added by an editor who has not made a single other edit to this article.
Incidentally, the age of the sources is irrelevant; notability is not temporary, meaning that if the statue was notable in 1929, it is notable now. Also, Ayris 1999 discusses both the statute and its tarring, and has been added to the raticle. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the talk page that the tag isn't due, considering the comment by @Sojourner in the earth. Again, news articles are primary sources, and article subjects are required to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. If the Ayris piece really is 12 pages then sure, that's SIGCOV, but a passing mention is not sufficient to meet SUSTAINED and given it's only used to source a single sentence I have trouble believing it is enough to satisfy the "based on secondary sources" policy. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)