Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gisela of Kerzenbroeck


 * 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   speedy keep. AfD is not the proper place to lodge a disagreement with an AFC reviewer, nor is it the proper place to call other editors "arses". ‑Scottywong | talk _ 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gisela of Kerzenbroeck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inappropriate AFC acceptance. Article seems to lack context and is very incomplete. GAtechnical (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am responsible for creating the Gisela of Kerzenbroeck page. I feel strongly that this page should remain in existence. Female medieval illuminators are few and far between, and the Codex Gisele is a significant medieval manuscript. Several books are dedicated entirely to a discussion of this manuscript and its author. While little is known about Gisela, I have included the inscription that mentions her name and three viable sources. I would hope that medieval scholars will continue to contribute to and expand upon this article. Alexandrathom (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The artist and tbe illuminated manuscript she created are discussed in many reliable sources,as shown by a Google Books search under her name and also Codex Gisle.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I realise that but that's not the point of this AFD. The user who moved it from AFC, seems to be a real bad judge (personal I think he is being an arse) as this article IMO is not ready for mainspace due to it's lack on context. And judging by the amount of sources I found in a simple search, proves the point that it shouldn't have been moved IMO. Apologies to Alexandrathom for this dancing around. GAtechnical (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is that AfD is not the proper place to resolve a disagreement with an AFC reviewer. The topic is notable and the solution to perceived shortcomings in the article is to improve, expand and reference it, not to delete it.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * AFD is definitely not the proper place to resolve this. And since the nominator did a "simple search" and found sources, then he actually followed WP:BEFORE, sort of. However, rather than taking it to AFD, those sources should have been added to the article, saving everyone the trouble of this pointless AFD. And do I have to point out how inappropriate "I think he is being an arse" is?  freshacconci  talk talk  15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - in my view, the subject would pass WP:CREATIVE as the creator of historically significant work, regardless of volume of sources. I agree that progression from AFC should require more than "would survive AFD". You should absolutely follow those concerns up with the reviewer but AFD isn't AFCRV (Articles For Creation For Review). Stalwart 111  00:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per the nominator admitting he found plenty of sources in a "simple search" thus making this AFD pointless. freshacconci  talk talk  15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Nominators problem unclear. I've ce'd & added bits, using my unreliable German. It probably shouldn't have left AFC without categories for example (now added), but that's not an AFD issue. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 5 March 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.