Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location

The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location

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

Very puffy, non-neutral tone, seems redundant to existing articles, possible copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently "puffy". Intellectual tone too high for Wikipedia. Subject too serious.--Wetman (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely to be original research that belongs in an academic journal. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain: The reason for keeping the article is that a long-time issue has been solved now and is of interest for historians and fans of Vermeer. The issue is not found in the main articles about Vermeer and about the painting. If the text is too puffy, please let me know where to tone down. I just tried to be scientific in order not to be critized for writing unfounded facts!

The mathematical appendix can be transferred to the article about perspective in Wikipedia and a link to that can be given here. Primasz (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is really original research, it seems like a waste to give it to Wikipedia rather than publishing it in a journal first. But Primasz, you actually mention on your talkpage that "[t]he article has been published in the mean time." If that is the case, it would seem to solve the issue, as you could simply cite your own published article in the article here. --Hegvald (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The citation has been made Primasz (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or better yet, merge into the article on the painting. Could do with a more encyclopedic style but overall a useful contribution which should not be wasted. Bryce (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wikipedia is for articles. We can fix it. In the meantime, it won't tarnish the reputation or anything. It's full of information. All it needs is to be wikified. Saeb(talkjorn) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]