Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)

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 no consensus. No policy-based consensus to delete/merge/keep this now. WP:PERSISTENCE may determine whether the article is renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)

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

Pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, especially given that the first sentence admits this work is "of little artistic importance." The news item is already mentioned on the artist's page, which is enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being with a view to merging. The state of the painting does raise questions regarding restoration. -Alan (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced that WP:NOTNEWS necessarily mandates deletion in cases like this. Let's give the article some time to be fleshed out. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In a nutshell : Articles in other languages, comments of notable artists of the story as a work of art (e.g. Alex de la Iglesia), internet phenomenon. Keeping track of the article will make reference to it easier in the longer term (especially as the primary sources will be harder to find later). To my knowledge, it is the first time a notable and documented error by an amateur artist draws so much attention and becomes a work of art in itself. Plus it is no longer just the work of Elias Garcia Martinez but also of Cecilia Gimenez (debunking the "reference to the work on the artist page" argument). Many reasons to keep it as an article imho. Loizbec (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loizbec --82.170.113.123 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elías García Martínez. Yes, it's funny and got a lot of coverage on the Internet, but it's not a particularly notable painting, and doesn't need its own article. Robofish (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elías García Martínez. It is a non notable work by a not so notable painter. Everyone agrees the painting is of little artistic value. Lechatjaune (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because extensive news coverage makes it notable even if the event has no intrinsic importance, c.f. Balloon boy hoax. 98.112.153.79 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elías García Martínez. It is a non notable work by a not so notable painter. The painting also rose to notoriety due to its restoration attempt. --Pinnecco (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loizbec. Per WP:EVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." Most coverage in RS is in Spanish so far, but there are serious in-depth articles in English. Time will tell if this has enduring notability. Contra Lechatjaune, the picture is agreed to have no technical merit, but it is artistically remarkable nonetheless. --Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially not merge. The fresco (especially in its current shape) has already got more popular than the creator. I was surprised that just about all my international friends knew of the incident, only the death of Steve Jobb's seemed to be more well-known, and while popularity will normalize after a surge, it's rather naive after it hit thousands of newspapers [1] that it would simply go away forever. Universities have expressed sociological interest, there's a petition almost ready to go for keeping the fresco as is [2], it's hit internet culture and fans created parodies like this [3] and a game [4]. Love it or hate it, it's notable.--Razionale (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the notability of the painting is rocketing daily due to the botched job and there are now petitions to keep the painting on display. Definitely worth having an article on. --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 19:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Husky ^{(talk page)} 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It would be insane not to keep this article and separate, it has become worldwide news. texastame 22:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.16.162 (talk) [reply]
Keep and redirect Cecilia Gimenez to this. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its notoriety is increasing tenfold with each day that passes. It's also been reported worldwide. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the most famous restoration I have heard of. --Fluffystar (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also a lot of coverage in the news of notable and reliable German media, like Spiegel Online and so on. --Fluffystar (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why "especially given that the first sentence admits this work is "of little artistic importance."" is supposed to be valid argument? Bulwersator (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loizbec. --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was actually in the original 4chan thread where the image-macros started, so It'll have to be yes I guess. - Another n00b (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty clear cut case of WP:IMPATIENTLYAFDSOMETHINGASSOONASITGOESVIRAL. Merging discussions belong on the article's talk page, not at AFD. It's pretty obvious that this information is verifiable and notable and should be mentioned somewhere, but I would also oppose merging per Razionale's razionale. - filelake shoe  13:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin Note that many of these !keeps don't address the nomination reason; yes it's in the news now, but will it have lasting notability? Probably not. "I've heard of it" and "my friends have heard of it" are not WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources that meet WP:GNG - Ohnotitsjamie comment above ("I've heard of it" and "my friends have heard of it" are not WP:GNG criteria. ) is therefore disingenous. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, since this is not routine news by any means. I thought about merging, but the painting and related incident received much coverage per se independently from the author, as Razionale mentioned. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNow it's most known the picture than the artist--Madalino (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many sources from newspaper around the globe and the painting itself is more famous that the artist who made the original. There's no debate here Mr. Administrator, this painting is notable.Deltasama (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about the painting, its origin, and its recent restoration. Bouncing those topics off the GNG criteria, the article seems satisfactory: those topics have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and can be verified. --Ds13 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The painting is notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2012 (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.