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 . Mojo Hand (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Enthroned (Cima da Conegliano)[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)

Disputed draftification. Immediate moving back to mainspace after draftification with no improvement. Requires substantial sourcing to remain here 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Christianity. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Sourcing is presently deficient and this seems like a good-faith effort to build out an article on a potentially notable subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing exists to verify both where it's held and who it's by, both of which virtually guarantee inclusion. Draft warring aside, this seems like process wonkery. Star Mississippi 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify unfortunately this article creator often only puts a single source on their creations. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale given. I wish the creator wrote better articles, with more sources, but most of our painting articles are like this, and at least these Russian ones are useful for English-speakers. Given the colossal literature, all significant Old Master paintings will have many sources, but not all online. The owning museum is typically the best sources though, and the great majority of our paintings articles mostly use these, and rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to keep this article, but I had trouble finding sourcing searching online in English, German, or Italian. Granted, I couldn't search in Russian, but usually I can find more than just the museum catalog. Jahaza (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most literature on Cima is in Italian, but quite what it would be called in it is a question. Since it is supposed to be a predella section, somewhere there are bound to be long papers trying to tie it to other sections of the original altarpiece. These probably won't be online, except perhaps on JSTOR. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Johnbod, a major source for paintings is the museum listings, which verifies the work and location. Mainspacing this article both warranted and a nice addition to several Wikipedia collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There undoubtedly will be substantial sources on this sort of significant artwork by a notable artist held by a major collection, if only someone goes looking for them in the right places. The work was in Italy, then Germany, and now in Russia for a century, so those sources may not be in English or online, but they will exist. For example, here is Cima's Segnender Christus in 1883.
Distressingly, other stubby articles by the same editor on significant works by other major artists in major collections have also been unnecessarily "draftified", which everyone knows is the slow and quiet way of hiding them away until they are deleted. Examples: Picasso in the Pushkin; Gaugin in the Hermitage. When did Wikipedia become so hostile to new content? Theramin (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theramin: Took the words out of my mouth. All this editors creations should be speedily reintroduced to mainspace. Wikipedia has began to have a major problem with lack of WP:BEFORE and aversion to stubs/"bad" but notable articles in recent years.★Trekker (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per all reasonings given above.★Trekker (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 25 April 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.