Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution (painting)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolution (painting)
Short description on the possible meanings of a particular painting. Radiant! 13:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete I try to be kind to artistic and cultural articles, but this one doesn't even say what artist painted it! It is not, to my knowledge, a famous painting.  Due to its lack of context, delete. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:40, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried like hell to find this piece of art: the title without the artist is completely meaningless, and all the works I could find on art.com and the artcyclopedia were clearly not this work. I have a feeling the work described is not notable, but even if it is, the article as it is, is about nothing because of the lack of artist information, in my opinion. HyperZonktalk 17:08, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without either citing the artist or the piece of art in question, this article is meaningless. Zzyzx11 20:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no image - no context, unverifiable. Megan1967 00:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. a) Patent nonsense, b) original research/personal essay. In present form, there is actually no context and it fits the second definition of patent nonsense, "Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it." This technical makes it a speedy candidate, but since the problem could be remedied if the painting were identifiable, it is reasonable to put it up for discussion here. However, even if the painting were identified, no sources for the "simple analysis" are given, so it's deletable as original research/personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. At first I thought of M. C. Escher but the description does not fit his black-and-white lithograph, Evolution Cyclique.