Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imitation of Christ (painting)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Imitation of Christ (painting)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a painting hung in a pub that caused a brief controversy in 2006 - a local politician complaining about it, as part of a the wider cultural theme of blasphemy in art. The artist and the owner of the work are both of questionable notability; only one source (that doesn't use the artwork's name - meaning that there's no reliable source for this article title); 'orphan' and 'needs more citation' tags have been in place for six years. An [admittedly brief] search didn't find any mention of this painting other than mirrors of Wikipedia. Wittylama 14:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping (original author). Wittylama 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Wittylama 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Wittylama 14:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, The pub's town is Hobart, Tasmania and if the pub attracts people (customers or not), then it should just be included on the town's page, which it's not and there is no picture of the pub on Commons either. I agree it doesn't deserve an article. So editing this comment to reflect delete rather than merge Jane (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an unreferenced article about a non-notable painting that was briefly the subject of a media tempest in a teapot in Tasmania. As far as I can tell, it has never been shown in a museum or notable gallery and has never been the subject of analysis by professional art critics. If paintings were people, which they aren't, then this would be a BLP1E. The general principle applies, I think. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable painting. Missvain (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2016 (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.