Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location


 * 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 userfied. I've just remembered why I don't like closing these things. I feel obliged to follow the route proposed by those who argue for deletion on the basis of WP:NOR at least insofar as removing this from our article namespace is concerned. I found this very interesting, but it does seem that we are simply not the right venue for this as it is new research. I've moved the article to User:Primasz/The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location. If there are parts of this which can be incorporated into The Little Street (Vermeer), please go ahead, but I suspect that there must be some other venue where the material as a whole would be better published. After which, and if some debate has been generated, we can reinstate the article. How depressing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very puffy, non-neutral tone, seems redundant to existing articles, possible copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Insufficiently "puffy". Intellectual tone too high for Wikipedia. Subject too serious.--Wetman (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - likely to be original research that belongs in an academic journal. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maintain: The reason for keeping the article is that a long-time issue has been solved now and is of interest for historians and fans of Vermeer. The issue is not found in the main articles about Vermeer and about the painting. If the text is too puffy, please let me know where to tone down. I just tried to be scientific in order not to be critized for writing unfounded facts!

The mathematical appendix can be transferred to the article about perspective in Wikipedia and a link to that can be given here. Primasz (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is really original research, it seems like a waste to give it to Wikipedia rather than publishing it in a journal first. But Primasz, you actually mention on your talkpage that "[t]he article has been published in the mean time." If that is the case, it would seem to solve the issue, as you could simply cite your own published article in the article here. --Hegvald (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The citation has been made Primasz (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - or better yet, merge into the article on the painting. Could do with a more encyclopedic style but overall a useful contribution which should not be wasted. Bryce (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep--Wikipedia is for articles. We can fix it. In the meantime, it won't tarnish the reputation or anything. It's full of information. All it needs is to be wikified. Saeb (talk jorn ) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another close call for Wikipedia's endangered high end.--Wetman (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Although this discussion has plenty of votes, there haven't been many valid arguments presented. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather, there has been no good argument for deletion. Poor tone (puffiness and lack of balance) is not a reason to delete, nor is possible copyright violation. Either it is or it isn't; if it is, demonstrate it. Redundancy would be, but very little in the article appears to be found elsewhere at Wikipedia, so I have no idea how the article is supposed to be redundant. It certainly needs to be wikified, but that too is no reason to delete in the meantime. Srnec (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the material in this interesting article. For me, the only question is where. If there is evidence of previous controversy about the location, then the The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location article should stand, and should be expanded to present that. In the absence of those other views, then there is an argument for merging the current article into The Little Street (Vermeer). But either way, the material should not be deleted. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research that apparently hasn't been published anywhere in a reliable source. If it were, a summary of the findings could be added to The Little Street (Vermeer), with the published source used as a reference; but that seems impossible as things stand. WP:OR is a core content policy for a reason. Deor (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article is edited to make more clear that it is not original research. The article claims to be "based on a bi-lingual document (English and Dutch) in the Delft Municipal Archives on this topic, Nr. 55_D_29". That should be transformed into a proper citation, and the author should confirm that the article does not contain novel conclusions not found in that document.  Sandstein   07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)