Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children in a Chariot

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) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children in a Chariot

[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)

Non-notable painting that has received little to no coverage, failing WP:GNG. Highway 89 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’m not clear how any work by Goya isn’t notable, but a search in google books shows multiple works discussing it as part of Goya’s oeuvre. The linked article on fr.wiki has multiple refs. Mccapra (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obvious keep which just needs a reference, and per Mccapra. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Another irritatingly useless article by this editor, taking up other people's time. A proper articles on the series would be better. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, the creator of the article, DilletantiAnonymous has not responded to calls for better sourcing of their stubs, except this one time. I don't think we can expect a change in behaviour. The list at User talk:DilletantiAnonymous/Inlinesourcesneeded hasn't been maintained. If we think the mass-creation of unattributed translations is disruptive, we should propose a community ban of some form. Vexations (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, some of the calls have been mine! Lots of his stuff just repeats, reworded, the 2-3 lines on the museum site. I'd like a ban on new stub/article creation certainly, but I think that would be an innovative move. Worth the attempt perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a painting from such a noted artist reminds me of point no. 5 of WP:NBOOK : "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." just substitute book and author with work and artist, anyway, having a look at the French WP article on this painting (thanks Mccapra) shows enough references to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be fleshed out, but sources exist in Google Books.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator claims little to no coverage, but [1] has an extensive bibliography. Vexations (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet another article in need of a willing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)striking vote of sockpuppet Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned to note that E.M. Gregory was blocked as a sockpuppet. 43K edits... ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equally stunned. Is this for real? Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is for real, the nation state level sockpuppets get in there deep... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2019 (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.