Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depiction of women artists in art history (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Women artists. SpinningSpark 01:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Depiction of women artists in art history
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Though this has previously been kept at AfD, there seems to have been no subsequent improvement or development, so the "potential" has not been realised (or realisable). The subject area is essentially identical to the Women artists article, therefore no need for a split. The Wikipedia article here reads like a piece of original thought, laying out a preamble about the lack of depiction of women artists in general (how do you write an article based on what hasn't been written?). The reading list gives an extensive bibliography about women artists in general. Of the four images in the article, two are self-portraits (self depiction?) and one is a painting of a female novelist (not an artist). Charitably this should be redirected to Women artists. There is nothing sourced, or anything that doesn't read like an original essay, therefore nothing to merge. If there is a separate subject worthy of a split, it is not adequately defined or specifically evidenced. Sionk (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A merge with Women Artists makes sense. The potential exists for an in depth article...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Keep What a waste of time for WP editors to have to respond over and over to these spurious AfDs whose nominators have not the vaguest notion of the BEFORE procedure. Although two of the Keep voters in the previous AfD discussed the article's "potential", the AfD was closed Keep with no conditions or even comment on the state of the article by the closer. Thus, the nominator's first argument is unsound because there was no onus on anyone to improve the article. But it WAS improved. Exactly FORTY references were added to the Further reading section. This of course also renders laughable the nominator's assertion that the article is unsourced, annd the rest of the arguments by the nominator conform more closely to IDONTLIKEIT than they do to policy. Anarchangel (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is a complete load of personalised rubbish. I'm a member of WikiProject Visual Arts and WikiProject Women Artists, so why would I not try to like it, or look for sources? "Women artists in art history" is essentially the same subject as "Women artists". The reading list is an identical copypaste of the one on the Women artists article. I can't see a justification for a split. Sionk (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I regret that I used the descriptor "nominator" as in, "nominator's assertion" rather than the more neutral, "nomination's assertion". However, since my focus was, as always, on the arguments rather than the person, I deny that these are ad hominem arguments or PA. I have retracted my statement about the Further Reading, and have added sources to address that concern. Anarchangel (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge I think this article is worthwhile; I prefer keep after thinking about it...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to expand? Sionk (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See above and previous remarks...Modernist (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * note to closing admin has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads like a rambling, unfocused opinion-piece. Based on its current content, the article seems to be about any number of things, and all of them seem very OR. Is it about The depiction of women in art, or The space and importance assigned to women artists by Art History, or The study of how those in the dicipline of art history have defined and characterised women artists through time, or The identification of works of art produced by women artists or The depiction of women artists in art, or Self portraits by women artists or even something else entirely? As Sionk said, the title "Women artists in art history" is essentially the same as "Women artists". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * delete the article is full of POV and OR. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge I think the article should be merged with "women artists." For one thing, the article is not really about depictions of women artists in art history. There is certainly important information about works that have been erroneously attributed to male artists, as well as some good reasons why it is difficult to do research on historical women artists, but it really isn't about depictions of the artists. I would expect an article entitled "Depiction of women artists in art history" to be primarily about how women artists have been characterized in artwork (like Johan Zoffany's painting of the British Royal Academy in which the only two women who were members at the time were not shown present at the gathering, but rendered as portraits hanging on the wall in the background), in art historical scholarship (consistent references to women artists by their first names, while this is not generally the convention for their male counterparts), or in popular culture (Marcia Gay Harden as Lee Krasner in the Pollock biopic). Finally, the "women artists" article is basically a very long overview of women artists throughout history and in different parts of the world. It's got a lot of breadth but no depth. The article nominated here for deletion actually would add something to the "Women Artists" article because it more generally addresses how and why women artists have been marginalized or excluded from the art historical narrative. Arthistorygrrl (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Problem is the title of the wikiarticle is so specific, such that if I try to insert it into a browser bar, the first thing that comes up is the Wikipedia article, plus numerous clones of it. Still, the title is somewhat unclear -- are we talking about how women artists were depicted in art, that is, paintings of women painters? Or does "depict" mean how women artists were described (using words) throughout history? Or is this a more general take on the depiction of women in art, throughout history? This was not clear to me after reading the first paragraph, although the second one suggests that we're talking about women artists here, in paintings (I think). The continued lack of reliable references is problematic, but with so much unreferenced content, strikes me that this is an WP:ESSAY with a point of view, namely that women artists have not been depicted properly throughout history (which is bad worthy of being fixed). Perhaps this article is even a subtle advertisement for a book by pretty much the same name here. The numerous other read-alsos, the lack of references, the fact that the article has not improved much since the AfD discussion two years ago -- for these reasons, I lean to deletion. I'm thinking the merge ideas won't work since there are already other articles which cover this subject, perhaps better, hopefully.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with women artists. I don't see sufficient difference between the topics to justify two distinct articles; the further reading sections of both these articles are identical, for example.  The merge needs to be done carefully.  Much of the material in this article is written in a tone which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, so just cutting and pasting the text into the other article would yield a poor result.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge (women in art) - I agree with Arthistorygrrl. Neutralitytalk 00:31, 28 August 2014 (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.