Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Staude

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The result was keep- nomination withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Staude[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BIO1E also applies; coverage on this woman is always connected to the painting. An article about the painting itself may be more appropriate, but no such article currently exists. If it is created, I would suggest merging this content into the article on the painting. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Austria. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To clarify, this page is about both the painting and the person. We have many articles on Wikipedia that do both. The reason I think the article name needs to be her name and not "Portrait of" (which is now a redirect), is that many sources refer to the painting as simply Johanna Staude. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification! The issue of insufficient sourcing remains, though. Only one of the sources currently in the article could be described as significant coverage, and some might construe that one as an unusually thorough database entry. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. The person isn't notable. An article about the painting (Johanna Staude is a painting by Klimt, blablabla) may be acceptable, and in that article a section about the sitter may be included, but she isn't notable, and shouldn't e.g. be included in the "woman artists" categories if we have no indication that she is in any way a notabe artist; on the other hand it should be included in painting categories. Fram (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still expanding. Yes will delete the category then. I'm just not very good at categories. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the order of the lede around. Reads better. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Actualcpscm: This could have all been discussed on the article Talk page, or on my Talk page, or you could have contributed edits directly to the article, and added sources from your WP:BEFORE search. Seems like a misuse of AfD per WP:ATA. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to very strongly disagree there; the point of this discussion is still notability of the article subject, and the concerns raised in the AfD nomination have not been addressed in any substantial way. There are still not enough reliable sources providing significant coverage to establish notability. The fact that other editors haven't addressed notability concerns directly is not due to a lack of such concerns. Remember WP:OVERCOME. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress. Rather than micromanage every edit, why not help improve the article directly? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I'm micromanaging, and the reason I'm not working on the article is, as mentioned above, WP:OVERCOME. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not convinced you've done an adequate WP:BEFORE search or even bothered to check Wikipedia Library (or the Internet Archive or Google Books, where all the books are). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice. Please consider withdrawing this to save folks some time. WP:BEFORE.C.2: If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.. Article was nominated less than two hours old. If you really need to, tag it (BEFORE.C.3) —siro χ o 12:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was nominated far too quickly. Whether the primary topic is the painting or the person is moot. More sources have emerged since the nom, and I think they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.