Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic scandal


 * 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 keep. SpinningSpark 00:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Artistic scandal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an arbitrary list of examples of controversial works of art, introduced by a very brief and curious definition of scandals, that discusses mostly paintings, and includes a number of works that were not scandals at all. The inclusion criteria are not unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as WP:LSC recommends. Vexations (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly introduce category:Artistic scandals per Category:Scandals by type, with clearly defined inclusion criteria.
 * Reason: The usage of the term can be found, but my quick google search didn't show any in-depth discussion of the term. It appears to be merely a collocation with no special significance, kinda "yellow flower" or "Eternal love" (cf. Eternal Love :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept seems reasonably clear and easily passes WP:LISTN as the page already lists several good sources: Les grands scandales de l'histoire de l'art;  Le scandale dans l'art; Scandales érotiques de l'art. And it is quite easy to find more such as this article in Britannica: Vile or Visionary?: 11 Art Controversies of the Last Four Centuries.  The suggestion that a category be used instead violates WP:CLN which makes it clear that we don't delete such pages in order to do the same thing differently. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Britannica is just a list of scandals, with a brief preamble, Iust as in our wikipedia good list articles. The subject ''per see' is not discussed in depth. Therefore, if kept, I would suggest renaming it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * weak keep the article may be an 'arbitrary list' as it stands, but it seems to be a well-defined topic that a better list or simply article could well be developed for. afd isn't cleanup/ See  for examples of coverage Eddie891 Talk Work 21:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename List of controversial works of art or (better) List of controversial paintings (and remove the few non-paintings for other lists). "Scandal" is too hazy a word, and "artistic scandal" is far too broad. Many, if not most, new art movements generate opposition, e.g. Impressionism, and a significant number of artists actively court controversy. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's a widely and seriously discussed topic. Renaming would go against the sources used in the article and those mentioned here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename To List of controversial works of art. Topic is notable but has a very strange article title. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP I agree, just rename the article and it's fine. Topic covered in Encyclopædia Britannica and a valid list article that collects like items and links to their articles.   D r e a m Focus  15:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that the sources prove that the subject is notable, although I think I've seen an article similar to this one. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Art scandals might be a better name.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2020 (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.