Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation

: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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

=[[Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation]]=

:{{la|Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation}})

Bizarre mixture of things already included in other articles, non-scientific speculation, and discussions about the attribution of some works supposedly (not) by him. The section on the background is already included in Leonardo da Vinci's personal life. The attribution of his works is discussed in List of works by Leonardo da Vinci. This leaves us with the section "Leonardo mysteries", with one which is included in Speculation about Mona Lisa, leaving us in the end only with the section on the Da Vinci Code, which is discussed in the article on that book and in Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code.

So we have an article with three very loosely related parts (the scientific discussion of his perosnal life and of his works, and the popular speculation by people like Dan Brown) which are already included in (sections of) dedicated articles. Fram (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:*The article was created recently and has remmained incomplete. However, there was solid intent behind its creation.

::Leonardo, probably more than any historic person in modern times has generated speculation and attribution. Much of thhe speculation and attribution, and even some of the recent scientific investigation is so unlikely and unfounded as to be almost ludicrous in nature. However, it goes on continually, and as Wikipedia's major contributor on Leonardo, I am the person who gets to deal with it, ad infinitum.

:I bundled together a great mass of the least Encyclopedic speculations and attributions and put them all together under one clear heading. The one thing they have in common is that they are all about Leonardo.

:*This page provides a place where people can look up the various theories and track them down, either in novels, on line etc.

:*It is designed specifically inorder to keep less-encyclopedic material out of the main pages, but still give the fact that such theories exist an encyclopedic statement. Tis stuff does exist, in vast quantities, and the fact of its existence reflects the enormous fame and attraction of the character of Leonardo da Vinci.

:*It is my intention that the wilder theories concerning the major works Mona Lisa and The Last Supper will all end up on this page rather than cluttering up the main pages on those articles. Bona fide art historians have never seriously suggested that Mona Lisa is a self portrait. Neither have they seriously suggested that John in the Last Supper is Mary Magdalene. This stuff doesn't belong in the main articles. It belongs in this new article, along with the initials in her eyes etc. However, it takes time to transfer the stuff and write it in.

:*Much of the content in several sections has been placed there by an editor Murray Menzies who has lots of ideas, but has yet to grasp the finer points of writing for wiki, in particular the POV. The contributions need serious editing.

:* I'm having difficulty getting back to sort it out, partly because of ongoing problems with my service provider. It is increasingly hhard to upload stuff and a minor edit can take 6 tries and 15 minutes wasted. I end up frigging around instead of making major contributions.

::Amandajm (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:::NOTE that at present many of the topics to be dealt with are at this point in time, merely headings waiting to be padded out. Most of the paintings attributed here don't have their own page and don't warrant one. They can be dealt with here in a single paragraph, giving more information than in the list of attributed works, but not as much as a required for a monograph. "Christ Carrying the Cross" is a case in point.

:::Please do not decide to delete my work hastily, if you are not fully aware of the problems, and if you are not keeping an eye on "Leonardo" topics online, in the press and on Wikipedia.

:::Amandajm (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

::In response to Fram's comments: The introductions to all the major Leonardo articles contain a small amount of biographical/general material, and some of the intro repeats part of the main article. However, in each case the introduction is just what it is supposed to be, tailored to the content of the article it introduces. The material quoted here from Gardner and other sources is equally pertinent to the general article and an as introduction to this present article. That is why it is here. A wiki-user ought not feel under obligation to read a vast biographical article, in order to comprehend this one. Amandajm (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

::I find the multiple use of "or" here telling; a shotgun rationale, aka throwing acronyms against the wall and hoping one sticks. Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep OR has been asserted but not shown; I can only trust the closer will allow for this, as there is no way to answer it other than with another assertion, and I don't knowingly do assertions. Grinning inside at 'both OR and FORK', as they are mutually exclusive, unless the original article was OR also.

:The number of people on Wikipedia who understand the concept of synthesis of facts in multiple sources to support a conclusion not supported by any of those sources separately, and know to use 'synthesis' to describe only that definition, has always seemed to be very small to me; in fact, I cannot remember the last time I saw anyone use it correctly.

:"loosely related parts" is the best rationale, and would seem to be leading to the problem with the title as well. However, the title: "Hypotheses and theories concerning Leonardo da Vinci", or similar, would cover all of the content, and if you think that is OR, then, with all due respect, you do not understand the NOR rule either.

:The article has always been well sourced, but it has been expanded as well; I feel confident that Amandajm can improve it further.

:Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

:: * Per your amusement that I contend something can be both OR and a FORK, you have a strange sense of humor. We might have a biography of George W. Bush and a fork article called George W. Bush's love of beanie babies fostered at Yale. The former may be non-OR but dealing with his time at Yale, the later pure OR from start to finish. Both a FORK and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We can agree, however, that SYNTHESIS is an anachronistic "Wiki Horror" — which will remain against the rules at WP for all time to come like some obscure verse of Leviticus since it came down the mountain with Moses. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I rest my case. Logic like this is why I never have time to edit articles. I repeat, nothing can be both a FORK and OR. The article you describe is OR only. The OR is added to his time at Yale, therefore it is not a FORK of the original material. Anarchangel (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

:::: That would depend entirely upon how much time each spent describing his time at Yale. If they both spent a lot, it would also be a FORK. By the way, how many angels do you reckon can dance on the head of a pin? I'm going with SIX. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2011 (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.