Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Brunswicker (Millais)


 * 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The result was   WITHDRAWN. I've reviewed this further, and have come to the conclusion that it would be more beneficial, encyclopedically, to be moved from the original article to the article on the painting, contrary to my original assertion. My original reading of the situation was flawed, I think; it seemed to me that the painting article was simply pasted, but I see potential for expansion here having just rifled through Google Books. There would indeed be too much content for the military article, and this is what has changed my mind. Therefore, I apologise for the expenditure of time and the error. I would be happy to presently assist with the movement of the text from one article to the other; this really does need to happen, because redundancies like this are unhealthy and are not proper. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Black Brunswicker (Millais)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:CFORK of Black Brunswickers. Pretty much exactly copy-pasted. -- &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many articles on specific paintings by Millais and other Pre-Raphaelites. The most important works of these artists have been red-linked for article creation for a long time on List_of_Pre-Raphaelite_paintings. This article follows the standard format for these articles. In this case it began as a short section in the article on the Black Brunswickers, but was split off and expanded by User:Mattis and later by myself. It follows the standard model in this respect. If a subsection overbalances an article it should be split off with a short version retained in the main article (see article spinouts - covered in WP:CFORK). In this case it was inappropriate to have a long section on art in an article that is essentially about military history. It made more sense to create the separate article that would join all the other Pre-Raphaelite painting articles. The sensible option here is simply to shorten the section at the Black Brunswickers page. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true. However, the majority of the content here has merely been copy-pasted. Further to that, it is inaccurate to assert that the material in the original article is unbalanced. It is highly pertinent and certainly not over-long. I think this comes down to whether participants feel a separate article for this artwork is necessary or appropriate here. My original analysis was that this article was exactly the same as the section; however, I see there is indeed potential for further expansion. I'm not sure. I will concede that there is merit in the solution proposed in shortening the section in the Brunswicker page; my concern with that, however, is that the original section was of fine length anyway. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is no need to shorten the section if you think it is appropriate in length. There is plenty of material in reliable sources with which to expand this particular article. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will shorten the section presently; see my withdrawal statement. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:32, 9 March 2009 (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.