Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealousy in art


 * 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   Withdraw per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jealousy in art

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a single source in sight. Seems to be built entirely on WP:OR and example-farming of artists who do not appear to be notable in their own right. If there's a salvageable topic here, then WP:TNT is needed; otherwise, this does not seem to be a noteworthy juncture of topics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge some to Jealousy. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question." And can we have TPH topic banned from deletion activity again, please.  . Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew, a worthwhile break-out stand-alone topic, a good addition to the overall topic and the Category:Jealousy, and erroneous mention in the nom that the artists mentioned are non-notable (most are very notable major artists). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in-article sourcing could be improved, but a quick scan of art literature identifies that this is a theme that is discussed. Will try to work on that during this AfD, but it's fine as-is to stand.      StarM 15:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have fixed the links in the visual arts section. The redlinks may have given the nominator the idea that they're not notable, but they simply weren't linked correctly. I have no doubt that the artists, and even some of the individual works, are notable. I'm not convinced that a painting like Jalousie ou le singe is itself notable for example. However, the lack of any sources is a problem. The whole article, but the visual arts section in particular is original research. Vexations (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am bewildered by the nomination. "Not a single source in sight"? At the time that made the nomination there were two sources cited. There may well be a case for thinking two were not enough, but that is not remotely the same thing as there not being a single source cited. "artists who do not appear to be notable in their own right"? Ariosto, Shakespeare, Hoffmann, Charlotte Brontë, Trollope, Tolstoy, Proust, Albrecht Dürer, Ingres, Edvard Munch "not ... notable in their own right"????? I really can't believe that TenPoundHammer really believes that all of those are not notable (even if he has not heard of all of them), so I can only conclude that either, as  suggests, he "has not even read the page in question", or else he doesn't care, and will say anything to try to get an article deleted if he doesn't like it, without caring whether it's true or not. In either of those cases he should not have made the nomination. JBW (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment Despite what I have said about the disruptive nomination, I am not at all keen on articles such as this, which basically take a collection of odd examples and artificially make a topic out of them. I agree with, who did not explicitly say either "keep" or "delete", though the logic of their position ("The whole article ... is original research") should mean "delete". However, I am unwilling to lend my support to such a grossly inappropriate nomination, so I have to remain neutral. JBW (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the subject may be notable, but the article violates our NOR policy. I am very reluctant to support such a flawed nomination. When I look for articles titled (something) in art, I notice that many are redirects to the main topics. See I think redirecting to Jealousy and having a properly sourced section, or several sections, there dedicated to representations of jealousy is both feasible and appropriate. Redirect. Vexations (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there's a difference between a notable topic and an article's content. I think, should this survive, much of the article would need to be re-written, as you noted. Whether AfD should be for cleanup or not, it often is as people see an endangered article and step in to address the content. Giving TPH the benefit of the doubt, he may have just been working through a backlog since the article is still tagged unsourced despite having two sources at the time of the nom (and more added since).      StarM 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Thank you for the new cited sources... Both subject and the article is notable...  --Kemalcan (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/arts/spare-times-for-oct-16-22.html The latest installment is this discussion about the history of jealousy in art and pop culture. This is a topic discussed in places it seems.  Does anyone know of any college textbooks about art that discuss this?   D r e a m Focus  13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.