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.
This page lacks substantive information. It appears to be some unreferenced rambles on the topic. And we already have Fantastic art. Goldfritha 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that article is more or less incoherent and that subject matter duplicates Fantastic art. In addition, there still seems some problems with copyright for the images—the Tanguy painting on the page, for instance, is less than 70 years old. Deor 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deor. /Blaxthos 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with fantastic art for the time being. FWIW, I suspect that fantasy painting could support a separate article from fantastic art; when I see fantasy painting, I think instead of "paintings made to illustrate fantasy literature", like Boris Vallejo, Frank Frazetta, Julie Bell, and so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an existing article about "paintings made to illustrate fantasy literature" at Fantasy art. Deor 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps a disambiguation is needed. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and while the images are nice, this is little more than an image gallery article. --Dennisthe2 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No article content.--ZayZayEM 03:11, 16 March 2007 (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.