Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Ewing portrait

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 redirect to Jock Ewing and merge verifiable content. I've redirected the article; previous revisions are available in the page history so that (verifiable) content from them can be merged into the Jock Ewing article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jock Ewing portrait

Jock Ewing portrait (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - no sources attest to the notability of this television prop. Otto4711 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I provided a number of external links that discuss how this portrait (actually three separate portraits) is notable. The original portrait and its later replica were used in a very popular television series (Dallas) and its successor made-for-TV movies and documentaries, often in a prominent manner. The other portrait now hanging at the Southfork Ranch is a focal point of this notable tourist attraction in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I believe this history establishes notability far beyond that of a "television prop." Casey Abell 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment By the way, this photo gallery at the Southfork Ranch web site (referenced in the Wikipedia article on the ranch) prominently displays the ranch's version of the Jock Ewing portrait. Again, this portrait is hardly just a TV prop. Casey Abell 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We'll just have to agree to disagree about the reliability of the sources. I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity of any of the links - the painter, the TV documentary, the IMDb page, the writer, or (which I just added) the Southfork Ranch site. Casey Abell 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Reliable source" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. At a minimum the source must be independent of the subject matter of the article. The website of the painter is not independent of the painting. The owner of the painting is not independent of the painting. IMDB is not a reliable source as anyone can submit information to it and fact-checking is minimal. The painting is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources and thus fails Wikipedia notability guidelines. Otto4711 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but again I can't agree with this. Are you actually suggesting that Hagman, Ro Kim and Southfork Ranch are unreliable in their assertions because of a lack of "independence"? You might as well say that mlb.com is unreliable in its assertions about baseball because it's not "independent" (however defined in wikilawyering) of the sport. Some common sense has to be used here. And the comments at IMDb are confirmed by episode summaries (an example) and discussions at a number of other sites. I just find it impossible to believe that some huge conspiracy is afoot to peddle false information about this (these) portrait(s) at a wide variety of websites. Casey Abell 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that you might want to read WP:RS so that you may come to understand what "reliable source" means in the context of Wikipedia articles instead of tossing around faintly perjorative words like "wikilawyering." Otto4711 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. But the external references to show images of the picture (though welcome) do not validate the detailed story told about the picture/s. The twists and turns (Hagman takes pic as memento, copy is made... etc) need sourcing with some in-line citations. With these provided, the article would be an amusing addition to Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, I couldn't verify all the details when I wikified the article. But I found a lot on the web which verified most of the story. For instance, there's no doubt that Larry Hagman still owns the original portrait: he says so in his memoir Hello Darlin' on pp.209-210, as I verified on Amazon.com here by searching in the book. Couldn't verify all the stuff about his lending the portrait for the replica in the reunion documentary, though. But the website on the reunion documentary, which is already referenced in the article, makes a big deal about the "real" portrait being used instead of the Southfork ranch version. And there's no question that the Southfork portrait is different: here's a nice large version that shows the overlay of the ranch at the bottom. The prominence of the portrait in the show and the successor programs is unquestionable: there's a lot of episode summaries and other material on the web that a Google search on the Jock Ewing portrait turns up. If this article survives AfD, I'll footnote a lot of this stuff in, but I don't want to waste even more work. (Wimpy, I know. I really liked working on this article when I saw it on the wikify list because it is such an amusing bit of pop culture. But seeing a lot of edits go down the drain is no fun.) Casey Abell 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into article on Jock Ewing any contents which can be sourced. I can accept that as a character on a major television show, Jock Ewing should have an article, I don't see why his portrait should be in its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A merge would be okay with me. I definitely want to keep the history of the article, though, because I think more and more of it can be sourced given some time. It's amazing how much stuff is scattered around on the web about this (these) portrait(s). There's even a USA Today article that mentions it. Casey Abell 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non notable TV show prop. DCEdwards1966 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jock Ewing. The character is notable, this prop (actually three) is not. The trivial and unverifiable quality of the sources speaks to its (un-)importance. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom sorry, casey, i see your point about how we measure what a source needs to be before it's "reliable." I know it can be frustrating trying to put something up that you think is important and interesting, but somtimes, as I have learned in making articles, you just have to let it go. sometimes you just can't find anything reliable and that's that. to be fair, i wouldn't say this is really notable either, on top of the fact that the sources are unreliable. Barsportsunlimited 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I love this type of article - trivial yes, but interesting. To delete it on grounds of notability would be murderous and totally missed the point of wikipedia: that we can include verifiable trivia. However, there's the rub, as true as this story may be, it isn't verifiable. Post me a note if sources for the story (not just snippets supporting original research) crop up, and I'll move to strong keep.--Docg 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge the show really did reference the portrait alot, or the actors directed dialogue or focus towards it. 132.205.44.134 21:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment After reading everybody's opinions, maybe the best compromise is a merge and redirect to Jock Ewing, which would include a single paragraph on the portrait(s). I believe there's enough sourcing to support a paragraph that notes: (1) Ro Kim originally painted a portrait, (2) it was a prominent feature in a number of Dallas episodes, (3) the portrait now hangs in Larry Hagman's house, and (4) Southfork Ranch has a different portrait that is a focal point of their Jock Ewing room. With all due respect to the nominator, and not wishing to continue wikilawyering (not a perjorative term - I'm doing it more than anybody here), I do think enough on the web meeting WP:RS exists to support such a paragraph. By the way, I added a single sentence to the Jock Ewing article over a month ago about the portrait, and it was an apparently non-controversial addition. I think this relatively small expansion to a paragraph should also be non-controversial. Casey Abell 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I worked on two 'Dallas' Productions, and can attest to all that is in this article. I was the one that borrowed the painting from Hagman, and had it's replica made at CBS' Graphics dept, purely because I didn't want to risk damaging Larry's original. I still have the 'replica' - the one with the signatures in my home, and was the one who took down the Southfork painting to replace it with my replica, so I can validate everything in this article. I don't know what I can do to help avoid deletion, but I thought this was a nice informative article about a painting that people might remember and might want to know more about. James Yarnell 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid, your attestation isn't really relevant. You may know all this is true, but we need verification from sources. If this article can't be verified by more than you, then it will be deleted. And nothing here gives any verification.--Sandy Donald 19:02, 21 June 2007 (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.