Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malibu Painter


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Malibu Painter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject only has three non-notable portraits attributed to himself and doesn't appear notable in any other way. ThePortaller (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's rare to know anything at all about Roman artists; the fact that three surviving works from antiquity, at least one of which is in an American museum, can be attributed to him, is reasonably notable. If the information about him is rather sparing, it's still likely that more could be written about the style or method of his work, descriptions of the individual portraits, his time period, or other circumstances.  And at worst, he could be folded into articles about other similar painters with this title as a redirect.  In any case, it would make no sense to delete an article about a known Roman artist just because we don't know his name, or because the people he painted might not have been important.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- First of all, nom gives no valid reasons for deletion. We do not judge artists by the number of works they've produced, otherwise why not try to delete e.g. Emily Bronte while you're at it?  Second, this painter clearly meets GNG as they're widely discussed in the scholarly literature.  Here are a few items from JSTOR just for instance:, , , a review of the monograph Siana Cups I and Komast Cups: Plates which discusses the Painter, this GScholar search, and so on and on and on.  An extraordinarily shoddy nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Non-valid reason for deletion, article is definitely worth keeping. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep why on earth would we want to delete a page describing a painter whose work is held in the permanent collection of a very notable museum and who is frequently mentioned in scholarly journals? His/her contribution to the field (Circa 100 A.D.) is established by the foregoing, establishing WP:CREATIVE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Sources turned up by clicking 'books' and 'scholar' above are sufficient. Nom could have quickly checked this. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of book hits that seem reasonable. Artists that are written about some 2,000 years after their death are typically notable even when few works survive.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The fact that a common style leads modern scholars to attribute three ancient portraits to one artist (whose name we do not know), should be enough to keep an article, though I would like to see this expanded with more about what is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (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.