Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Battista Armenini

:{{la|Giovanni Battista Armenini}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giovanni_Battista_Armenini Stats])

:({{Find sources|Giovanni Battista Armenini}})

Biography of an Italian 16th-century art historian/critic/academic. It relies heavily on primary sources, and I have failed to find any secondary sources to back up the notability claim. As a result, he fails the relevant notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:ACADEMIC. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Author of a notable historical book about painting. Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. The book is important enough to be included in the virtual library of the Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento (the Italian National Institute for the study of the Renaissance) [http://bivio.filosofia.sns.it/bvWorkTOC.php?authorSign=ArmeniniGiovanBattista&titleSign=DeVeriPrecettiDellaPittura], and 23 editions of its English translation are held by more than 350 libraries [http://www.worldcat.org/title/on-the-true-precepts-of-the-art-of-painting/oclc/003169161 worldwide]. A case of perhaps the book being more notable than the author, so no prejudice to a move to On the true precepts of the art of painting, leaving a redirect behind and incorporating the author's bio. However, even with the primary sources (and heck, this is the 15th century after all) I think a standalone bio is merited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I am biased since I started the article. But this is a a theory of painting book from the sixteenth century. I mean how did a contemporary of the pupils of say Michelangelo view the master? How many such books from nearly 500 years ago are there? References to this book can give others a grounding of how artistic theory at the time. The book cites the Trecanni encyclopedia as well as the source. It perhaps is a story that should get more attention than it has received.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, notability is currently very clearly shown in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball keep LK (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep passes GNG. Inappropriate nomination from user who identifies himself as being in secondary school. Anything wrong with that? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

:*Comment Just because the user is in secondary school doesn't mean anything, I myself am in secondary school and I have nominated several articles, this users may have submitted this with bad-faith or just misunderstood. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:*We all make mistakes in our first few AFDs, no big deal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 29 December 2012 (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.