Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scapegoat (painting)

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 per WP:SNOW. "One of the best known religious paintings of the 19th century." Ty 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scapegoat (painting)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, the two sources, first is a listing of the artist's work, second is the artist's biography, none are directly about this painting. Does not seem to be a panting by this artist that is notable in it's own right. — raeky T 06:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep William Holman Hunt was a notable article and this is a notable painting. Liverpool Museums say "one of the best known religious images of the 19th century". AllyD (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source? The article needs sources to establish notability of the painting, not the artist. As it stands now it has none, and makes no assertion of notability. Looks to be more likely an article made around a picture we have. — raeky T 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the source for that quote: [1] Zagalejo^^^ 09:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. It's certainly discussed in many books: [2]. There's a lot of junk on Wikipedia that needs to be deleted, but I don't think anyone out there is complaining that we have too many articles on pre-Raphaelite paintings. Zagalejo^^^ 09:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known painting, not just mentioned in reviews, but discussed at length as primary subject [3]. East of Borschov 10:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much that can be added to the above. So I've added nine sources to the article instead. There's plenty to write, here, not least from what Waldemar Januszczak, John Ruskin, William Michael Rossetti, and George P. Landow had to say about this painting. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course I would say that, as I created the article, but it is a clearly notable painting. If the nominator had just typed the title and artist's name into google he would have saved everyone's time. the fact that the article does not footnote evidence of notability is not, imo, a good reason to nominate deletion. footnotes should be to appropriate sources for specific points made that require citation, not a parade of significance. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Lack of reliable sources is a perfectly valid reason to question notability. An article that doesn't quote any sources at all is indistinguishable from original research. You appear to not have a good understanding of the notability guideline. As the primary creator of the article it is in fact your job to do (at least the initial) googling to prove the article's right to exist. Oh BTW I agree with the consensus to Keep. Roger (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article that doesn't quote any sources at all is indistinguishable from original research. — Only by those who don't put the proper effort into looking for sources themselves, which of course is expected behaviour for all editors. Putting verifiability into practice correctly is not a zero-effort exercise, and writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have much to add to the above (good work!). Just that I'm surprised this discussion is even happening. It's a pretty well-known and notable painting. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Glad to see this page saved from deletion. It appears that adding sources was all that was necessary to establish notability.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – definitely now satisfies WP:GNG with significant coverage in the many listed reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I was astonished to see this AfD proposal on such a famous work of art. — Hebrides (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick look at Google scholar show a decent amount of coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 15 August 2010 (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.