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 is an arbitrary list of examples of controversial works of art, introduced by a very brief and curious definition of scandals, that discusses mostly paintings, and includes a number of works that were not scandals at all. The inclusion criteria are not unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as
WP:LSC recommends.
Vexations (
talk)
18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The concept seems reasonably clear and easily passes
WP:LISTN as the page already lists several good sources: Les grands scandales de l'histoire de l'art; Le scandale dans l'art; Scandales érotiques de l'art. And it is quite easy to find more such as this article in Britannica: Vile or Visionary?: 11 Art Controversies of the Last Four Centuries. The suggestion that a category be used instead violates
WP:CLN which makes it clear that we don't delete such pages in order to do the same thing differently.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: The Britannica is just a list of scandals, with a brief preamble, Iust as in our wikipedia good list articles. The subject per see' is not discussed in depth. Therefore, if kept, I would suggest renaming it.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep because it's a widely and seriously discussed topic. Renaming would go against the sources used in the article and those mentioned here. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP I agree, just rename the article and it's fine. Topic covered in Encyclopædia Britannica and a valid list article that collects like items and links to their articles.
DreamFocus15:36, 31 May 2020 (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.
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 is an arbitrary list of examples of controversial works of art, introduced by a very brief and curious definition of scandals, that discusses mostly paintings, and includes a number of works that were not scandals at all. The inclusion criteria are not unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as
WP:LSC recommends.
Vexations (
talk)
18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The concept seems reasonably clear and easily passes
WP:LISTN as the page already lists several good sources: Les grands scandales de l'histoire de l'art; Le scandale dans l'art; Scandales érotiques de l'art. And it is quite easy to find more such as this article in Britannica: Vile or Visionary?: 11 Art Controversies of the Last Four Centuries. The suggestion that a category be used instead violates
WP:CLN which makes it clear that we don't delete such pages in order to do the same thing differently.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: The Britannica is just a list of scandals, with a brief preamble, Iust as in our wikipedia good list articles. The subject per see' is not discussed in depth. Therefore, if kept, I would suggest renaming it.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep because it's a widely and seriously discussed topic. Renaming would go against the sources used in the article and those mentioned here. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP I agree, just rename the article and it's fine. Topic covered in Encyclopædia Britannica and a valid list article that collects like items and links to their articles.
DreamFocus15:36, 31 May 2020 (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.