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 delete. No prejudice against recreation if the concerns raised here can be resolved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretia (Baldung)[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)

Originally deleted as speedy but challenged so opening up for a bit more discussion. This was deleted on deWiki as a hoax ( see deletion discussion there) and i've been unable to find any solid evidence to disagree with them. Found reference to a clearly different (in both style and format) similarly titled work by Baldung on the met website but that just makes me feel it's less likely. James of UR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added the hoax template to the article as a warning during the AfD but if we disagree should obviously remove it. James of UR (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I challenged the original speedy deletion because I discovered [1] and [2], among others, which appear to describe a painting by this name and artist and predate the creation of the en.wiki article. As such, I'm not entirely sure whether this is a hoax or there's some truth to this. I have some doubt because I saw three different presentations of what are allegedly the same work of art; maybe one does exist, but not the one described by this or the de.wiki article. In addition, I suspect that if it were an obvious enough hoax to qualify for G3, it would have been deleted long ago. Any insight on this would be appreciated. ^Complex/_Rational 19:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per some of the comments below, I would support a delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreating an article that stays focused on the correct painting if it satisfies GNG. ^Complex/_Rational 23:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article states this Leucretia painting is in the Bavarian State Painting Collections (Sammlung Pinakothek), however, a search of their collections (which spans 17 separate museum collections) returns the painting as being by: "Lucas Cranach D. Ä. (Anonymer Meister Seiner Werkstatt) (1472-1553)Selbstmord der Lucretia, 1520/40" not by Hans Baldung, as can clearly be seen here:[3]. A separate search for Hans Baldung works in the collections does not return the painting among the results.[4]. So this seems it may be a case of a possible mis-identification, and not a deliberate hoax. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not a hoax. [5] A quick google search shows enough coverage in books (manyin German) to satisfy WP:GNG. [6] [7] [8] Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paper, the author, Wolfgang Brassat [de], seems to rely to a worryingly extent on the German Wikipedia as source. I think the picture is real, but by the workshop of Lucas Cranach, not by Baldung; see the link above to the Bavarian State Painting Collections. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. It seems that the painting is by Lucas Cranach, but has been misattributed to Hans Baldung. I'm wondering if WP:TNT is the appropriate course of action here. Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is a 100% hoax. There is and was no painting "Aschaffenburger Dolchmadonna". This was a complete fake in de.wp. This article was translated into various WPs. And even used as only source for an scientific article, which makes it even worse. And the "Renaming" did not make it better because the facts in the article are still fake. For example nobody ever thougt, that this painiting is by Baldung. The only thing which helps: Deletion.--HCBut (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The picture is real, but I don't know how much of the article is wrong (apart from the Baldung misattribution). I strongly doubt it's a notable work of art, and so the article ought to be deleted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you "know": everything in the article is wrong, total invention. --HCBut (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over. See also https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_BStGS_WAF1148 . I merged and cleaned up Suicide of Lucretia (Q722010) on Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT, based on the findings that this painting is actually attributed to Lucas Cranach, and not Hans Baldung. Whether or not it is a hoax (which implies deliberate fraudulent intent) is not known, so I believe it is better to assume good faith on the part of the creator at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ . It was a hoax in the german WP, and somebody simply did translate it into english, which does not make it better. It does not help to "assume good faith", there was none. Somebody simply invented the text and even an "academic" reference, where this fake facts simply dont exit. --HCBut (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 2 January 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.