Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion

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. But multiple editors suggested that this might be a candidate for merging to an eventual article such as Depictions of Krishna and Radha. Sandstein 12:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion

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

No references, does not adhere to notability guidelines. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if improved The painting passes notability easily - it is the prime example chosen [1] in the world's best known college art history textbook - Gardner's Art Through the Ages!! The nominator clearly can't tell art notability from a hole in the wall. Unfortunately the 2nd para is a copyvio of Gardner's. Since we have hardly any articles I know of on individual Indian miniatures, it would be good to have it - an excellent candidate for rescue. Obviously some other references would be good; unfortunately there may not be much online. Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the copyvio and the article is now a single sentence. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've added a comment on notability, shamelessly plagiarised from Johnbod's rationale above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But is this not a theme rather than a particular work? Are there not other paintings of the same scene? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there are, as with almost any religious subject - Madonna and Child etc. If the article is expanded it could treat either the theme or this painting, which is, as these things go, pretty famous. Ideally one would have both. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per the quality of sources available through Gbooks and per inclusion in Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Unfortunately most of the online refs are limited or no preview, so I can't expand the article now, but that isn't a reason to delete. -SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure? The Gbooks sources (note that four of the first five are the same (Gardner's) book, and the most of the rest are catalogues) are only sufficient to conclude that the painting does exist and is catalogued. Does every such painting deserve a separate article? I'd be happier if this were incorporated into a "Depictions of Krishna and Radha" or some such article. Note also that one of the results is for a different painting with the same description. This leaves only one non-catalogue source, which may or may not refer to this one. I see no evidence that this particular painting is notable enough to have its own article. Given what the gbooks results look like, I also wonder what more can be written about this painting beyond a couple of sentences or a paragraph, really. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I considered that. However, we should adapt notability for books. This particular painting and the theme is considered as the most significant work in that category per one of the most significant books on art. So, clearly the work is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country (more than one particular country). Also, it was part of exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and the Brooklyn Museum among others, showing significant notability. All these are from generic gbooks, I have no idea about art specific sources. Given this, it appears to be clearly notable. -SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem that it is often hard from web sources to confirm that the same painting is being described, and not everyone may use this title. The Pahari book has several similar scenes under a variety of titles. The Christie's catalogues presumably do not refer to this one. But there is certainly "more [that] can be written about this painting beyond a couple of sentences or a paragraph". Any increase in our pathetic coverage of Indian painting should be encouraged. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for increasing our coverage of Indian painting too, but what do you think could be written about this specific painting? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced there's anything much to write about this specific painting. Like the other !votes, I do agree with "keep if improved" and that it is "a theme rather than a particular work" — in either case, if the article could be expanded either in content or in scope, it could be kept, but as it stands, all it rests on is that this painting was used in a textbook and was shown in exhibitions. That only means that many people have looked at it, not that many people have written (much) about it. The image will still be around even if the article is deleted, so when some context is found for the image, a new article can be created. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this at all. Art historians find no difficulty in writing large amounts about individual works, even when typical of their type - that is their job. The text that turned out to copyvio from Gardner's could be reworded and returned - this was just a short description. The difficulty here is finding the extended coverage that I'm sure exists, but in books that are not online. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem is that I'm not sure it exists. If the extended coverage actually does exist, then it's an obvious keep. Until we find it, it's just one speculation against another. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valuable addition to this encyclopedia, needs additional help, worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modernist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I share Shreevatsa's concerns. Eight sentences in Gardner's is a strong indicator that a painting is notable, but we can't write a full article based on just eight sentences. Moreover, most of what Gardner's had to say was about the painting as a representative of a tradition. Maybe there are off-line sources. Maybe there are sources that refer to the painting by another name. I hope so; I'd love for there to be a proper article about this. As it is, though, I'm not sure there's much we can say. (As a side note, an article like Depictions of Krishna and Radha sounds like it could be really cool, if it could be done without OR/SYNTH.) --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2009 (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.