Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birth of John the Baptist (Signorelli)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Birth of John the Baptist (Signorelli)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Birth_of_John_the_Baptist_(Signorelli) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Birth of John the Baptist (Signorelli)}})

Notability of this painting is not established. There are tens of thousands of paintings at the Louvre, and Signorelli painted many. Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see why we would single out this painting by Signorelli for deletion, but leave all the other stubby articles about his works, many created by the same editor, alone. Some articles on his work aren't stubs. There may be an alternative to deletion. The fact that some articles, like Testament and Death of Moses have more detail may be an indication that articles like this one could be expanded. I don't immediately have access to Paolucci as source, but it's worth checking. Perhaps all the subs can be combined into a List of works by Luca Signorelli. Vexations (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep A notable painting by a notable master artist. In the Louvre there are "5,500 paintings by 1,400 artists born before 1900". This one is displayed because it is notable. The book Exhibition of the Work of Luca Signorelli and His School [https://books.google.com/books?id=ETMoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Birth+of+John+the+Baptist+Signorelli&source=bl&ots=CZM9s4MIE1&sig=ACfU3U0NYBRE_5_YXLnGgf1tEQc--ETn7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjltLaWhdnlAhVR4qwKHUX3B6E4ChDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=Birth%20of%20John%20the%20Baptist%20Signorelli&f=false claims that this particular artwork] "is one of the best examples of Signorelli" Wm335td (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, the page is well-sourced. Why is this even up for deletion? It did lead me to some good edits, which is one good result of unnecessary AfD noms, but well sourced visual arts pages shouldn't have to go through the process. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, there's a significant amount of writing about it. Ewulp (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, nom is well intentioned but misguided, given the artist, and precedence; if an artist is notable, then it follows that people will be interested in their paintings, and thus the works are de facto notable to my wiki eyes; very often less developed articles have eventually passed GA. As Ewulp says, there is enough available source material for significant expansion. Also per Wm335td. Ceoil (talk)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, article especially shows this with sourced improvements subsequent to commencement of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Article is short but well-sourced. Who wants to bet that there are also other articles in un-indexed books and journals as well? The painting has been around a while.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Doomed nom. The level of RS about Old Master painting is such that "tens of thousands of paintings" do have notability (not that there are in fact that many in the Louvre). What sort of deletion argument is "Signorelli painted many"? As Vexations says, an odd choice - we have many worse ones. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• {{ping|Reywas92}}, what do you think about withdrawing this nom, in order to save valuable editor time? It is a clear keep, as above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• :There is no point in that; this was a good faith nom, and nobody died; lets let the process come to its conclusion. Lessons learnt, etc. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Ceoil}}, yes it is a well-intentioned nom, butt he article improvement work is done and continuing towards a foregone conclusion wastes editor time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Painting is notable enough to be in the Louvre, art history texts, JSTOR, and has sustained its notability throughout the centuries. Nomination was not well-conceived or perhaps not well researched. Netherzone (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the collection of the Louvre is indeed very large, but it is an encyclopedic museum after all, and Wikipedia is also very large. This painting is on permanent display in the Salle des Sept-Mètres of the Louvre that shows 66 works from 13th- to 15th-century Italy, including Portrait of Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, Portrait of a Princess (Pisanello), :fr:Dieu le Père bénissant parmi les anges (Raphaël), :fr:La Vierge d'humilité adorée par un prince de la Maison d'Este, :fr:Madonna col Bambino tra i santi Giovanni Battista e Antonio abate, :fr:Le Portement de Croix (Simone Martini), :it:Angelo (Raffaello Parigi), :it:Presentazione al Tempio (Gentile da Fabriano), :it:Annunciazione 598. Sufficient sources exists to sustain a reliably sourced article. The Joconde database of the French Ministry of Culture (https://www.pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/joconde/000PE027058) lists VISCHER P 305 ; CRUTTWELL, P 132 ; SALMI P 48 ; SCARPELLINI P 128 ; BERENSON 1968, P 399 ; VILLOT I 402 ; RICCI 1525 ; HAUTECOEUR 1525 ; C.S.I. 1981, P 238 Vexations (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per above, especially {{U|Vexations}}. It's a prominently displayed painting in one of the world's top three or four art museums, and is cited in art history texts. There's so much world-class art at the Louvre that I didn't notice it the only time I was there. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.