Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

One-sentence stub on a non-notable painting. Only one scholar, Carlo Pedretti, thinks it's by Leonardo da Vinci, and he tends to discover new "Leonardos" with surprising frequency. If anyone wishes to add more info on the painting they can do so on List of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci, where it's listed with other recent attributions. But there's not enough to say to merit a whole article. Ham 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have other people determine if the person doing the attributing is notable, but if he is the attribution should be mention in the other article as mentioned by the nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It isn't a painting it's actually a small pencil sketch attributed to da vinci of no particular note. --neon white talk 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to this sketch, it isn't the subject of the article. The article appears to be about this painting. WillOakland (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is too short to be clear what it refers to. --neon white talk 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge I'd argue that anything produced by Da Vinci should be covered per WP:BK. It has provision to cover all the works by a notable author. Da Vinci is even more notable than most authors so his work should somehow be covered. - Mgm|(talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete along with the list entry. The cited source doesn't actually say that Pedretti determined the painting to be a Leonardo. WillOakland (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or perhaps merge. I'd argue that every painting by him or thought to be by him should be covered, and covered in a separate article. We do not make a determination of who painted what, any more than we determine the truth in other subjects. I point out that if there is significant dispute about the attrribution, then there's sufficient material for an article. per WP:FRINGE, we include such articles. DGG (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as already on the list for now, without prejudice to recreation if a fuller article was written. The painting is notable, but this one-line text does not need a separate article. The list actually has more information already. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a notable scholar has attributed this work to da Vinci, we should have an article on it, if only to discuss the opinions concerning that attribution.  While I haven't looked, I find it highly unlikely such a work would not meet the general notability criterion.  If the article is short of information, this should be fixed by editing rather than deletion (as required by WP:DELETION). JulesH (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If more factual and relevant information turns up, then bring it back...Modernist (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete "maybe Leonardos" are not notable. Maybe the grafitti in my neighborhood were original Harings - time to get articles for all of them.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The painting seems to have previously been part of the permanent collection at the Uffizi Gallery, which I believe suggests that this work was notable even without the Leonardo connection. (I'm basing this on a painting of the same title and artist this painting is usually attributed to according to the Forbes article, which appears in the 2000 edition of their catalogue on page 114.  It is possible that there were two paintings of this title attributed to the artist, but I presume this is the same one.) JulesH (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until some more sources emerge attributing it to Leonardo. If the painting was in the Uffizi, it isn't now, and I'm not even sure that every single painting in a museum collection is automatically notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, but I think we should probably aim to cover every work of art that's in what you could call a top-tier gallery (i.e., the Louvre, Uffizi, the Tate Gallery, ...) assuming we can find sources about it. While this painting is no longer in said gallery, notability is not temporary, so by my reasoning we should still have an article.  We have one trivial and one non-trivial source about this painting.  I also found another source describing its sale in 1989 (presumably to Uffizi, as this was the last sale before the one described in the Forbes article).  These are enough to build an article from.  JulesH (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would not be very usual for the Uffizi to sell a painting, especially one they bought so recently. I wonder if it is in fact the same work. Usually "permanent collection" means what it says. There is also the question of the notoriously tough Italian art export restrictions. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Uffizi version is this one: ? Similar in pose to the painting illustrated in the Forbes article, but clearly a different work. Another version is in the Hermitage: . Gian Francesco Maineri, the artist responsible for all three versions (the official auction-house attribution for Mr Brugnara's possession is still Maineri), would be a notable subject for an article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2009 (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.