Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Mirror (René Magritte)


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

False Mirror (René Magritte)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This really isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a subjective analysis of one work of art, possibly original research, followed by a digression into a general discussion of Magritte that no longer concerns the work that the article is nominally about. The conclusion returns to the work, declaring it "exquisite". Wikipedia doesn't declare things to be exquisite or state any other evaluation of them. Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, as it is no longer the original article. Largoplazo (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * commentSurely that is grounds for cleanup rather than deletion, since this is clearly a notable subject? Artw (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable is insufficient if there is nothing there that can simply be cleaned-up. There's isn't anything here that can be cleaned up. Someone would have to write a new article, and we don't leave an article that is beyond repair in place in the hope that someone does that some day. See WP:TNT. Of course, if someone is moved by this to write a valid article beyond now and the expiration of this discussion, that's fine, but the discussion is valid, as a decision to delete will be at the end if the article isn't salvaged. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would stubbing not work just as well? Artw (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a useful stub, sure. (One that isn't so lacking in information it's subject to WP:CSD A7, for example.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of mentiosn of this painting in the press, books and other media. Try WP:BEFORE. It's crazy how many great sources are out there for this painting. It's a hugely famous work. Nominating it for deletion is a giant waste of time, although it did get the article cleaned up.198.58.173.248 (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate the article for deletion on account of a lack of sources, so protesting that there are sources is a non-sequitur. See WP:TNT. Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TNT would be an argument for restarting the article from scratch, which has actually begun to happen. Deleting it at this point would actually get in the way of that process. Artw (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep - I think this could be expanded upon but there is not a lot to start with. Artw (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing "weak" due to recent improvements to the article. Artw (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * STRONG Keep A great example of why people should do a WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. A hugely famous painting from the canon of 20th C art. In the MOMA NY collection. I had no trouble adding about ten references from Google books. Please Google "CBS eye Logo Magritte" to see how this painting has actually entered the pop culture vernacular.198.58.173.248 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate the article for deletion on account of a lack of sources, so protesting that there are sources is a non-sequitur. Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously you did not do your background research. It's clearly a lazy nomination that you should withdraw. Artw and myself were able to easily clean up the article. Had you done your research, you would have seen that it was an easy fix. TNT was not required-- just some work!198.58.162.149 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I responded here, but I'm moving my response to your note on my talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you would not just withdraw the nom. The article is notable and now without significant problems.198.58.162.149 (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Gross incompetence by the nominator, who argues that it's okay now because the article has improved? What utter BS - you can't nominate an article simple because it could be improved - the subject is either notable or not notable, and a quick application of WP:BEFORE would have made it obvious to anyone that the subject was notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Article on notable artwork by an unquestionably notable artist does not have rationale for deletion at this time. Netherzone (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2017 (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.