Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastiary, And Various Theological Texts


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Beastiary, And Various Theological Texts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Real book with no asserted real world significance. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: I could not locate any WP:RS with significant coverage of this Medieval manuscript other than the British Library's description linked to in the article.  However this description lists a rather extensive bibliography.  Very few of the listed works are available online, so I cannot determine if they would contain sufficient scholarly discussion and analysis of the manuscript's text to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment 'Beastiary' is misspelled; it should be 'Bestiary'. Ironically, the article with the correctly spelled title, Bestiary, and various theological texts, is up for speedy deletion. Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a particularly important medieval manuscript, even to students of bestiaries, and the most extensive treatment I've been able to locate is this master's thesis from the Pratt Institute. (Note: One is more likely to find online mentions of the manuscript by searching for the shelf mark "Royal 12 C. xix" than by using the "Find sources" searches in the nom.) There are thousands upon thousands of medieval manuscripts in existence, and almost all of them have been described by someone or consulted for the production of editions; but that doesn't make every one notable. This one might have been worth an article if it had distinctive features, but as the BL's page indicates, the bestiary part is "a direct copy" of the Worksop Bestiary now in the Morgan Library. Lots of pictures of its illuminations are floating around on the Web, though, as the BL has digitized the manuscript and made it available online. Deor (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Even if the MS were worth an article, it would have to consist of completely different text at a completely different title, so there's no reason to retain this one. Deor (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- but rename to Bestiary (British Library manuscript). I would regard the fact that there are other texts bound up with it as irrelevant.  The list of animals appears not to be necessary.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of other bestiary MSS in the British Library (see List of medieval bestiaries and look for "London" in the individual lists), so that disambiguator is itself ambiguous. And if the list of animals is subtracted, what exactly in this article is worth keeping? Deor (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, weakly, without prejudice. Whether this particular manuscript has artistic or textual significance -- and reliable sources for this, which do exist, note that its text is a copy of one from a more important manuscript, which suggests to me that an article on this particular one is not a high priority -- the current article is subminimal and would describe any of several medieval bestiaries. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * cries just a little-- no doubt this article does not assert its notability properly, but it would be rather easy to get it up to par, as the manuscript in question is both pretty and interesting and I can only imagine there are many Art Historians who have written about it. I suggest the closing admin shrug his or her shoulders a few times. Mrathel (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Offers a shoulder. I am not eager to delete this article.  The subject at mininum does not obviously not belong; illuminated manuscripts are the sort of topic that belongs in an encyclopedia.  I would note that we do not yet have an article on the Worksop Bestiary, either; that original that this is a copy of probably is indeed a notable manuscript.  And the release of many images from this manuscript on the web means that the best place to inform people about this manuscript is on Commons, where I suspect each one of them will be welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, I started a very minimal stub on the Worksop Bestiary. The Pierpont Morgan link has some materials with an extensive bibliography, so that article could easily grow. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:13, 3 February 2013 (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.