Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of a Commander

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Commander

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

All sources are dead and redirect to the article. This looks like original research, and purely expresses a personal analysis of the artist's work. I think this is too long and too messy to be maintained, especially with no references. Tco03displays (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artical is very messy and relies purely on OR and It looks like it is beyond hope.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NUKEANDPAVE or failing that speedy delete. The article itself is beyond hope and someone needs to talk to the editor about what makes a good wikipedia article. Portrait of a Commander on the other hand is itself notable as a multi million pound suspected fake by Peter Paul Reubens. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a start. Got to run off now, but I believe that to be a notable stub rather than a truly terrible Wikipedia article that starts off with a biography of Reubens. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Neonchameleon's rewrite. PamD 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work by Neonchameleon. --Tco03displays (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as rewritten by Neonchameleon. Nice work indeed. Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment The painting is actually named "A Commander being armed for Battle", not portrait of a commander (which may explain why sources have been so hard to find). Sources for the name I provided (as well as proof of notability):

-http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/29/us-finearts-princessdiana-idUSTRE62S31H20100329 -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293877/Is-Earl-Spencer-Rubens-9m-fake-Experts-cast-doubt-provenance-painting.html Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. Should make things easier to find. On the other hand I'm going to take the name as listed by Christies ("ORTRAIT OF A COMMANDER, THREE-QUARTER-LENGTH, BEING DRESSED FOR BATTLE" - legitimately shortened to Portrait of a Commander) over the name as listed by the Daily Mail. Both are legitimate, however Neonchameleon (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll create a redirect in case someone looks up the painting with the name I listed.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it now is. Can someone close this now & well done on the rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (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.