Deletion of Authenticity in art

Comment: per Uncle G ("We're here to build an encyclopedia based exactly upon what subject experts such as professors write in books"). '''Background:''' I've never liked working on broad scoped topics because they require contributions from editors with extra ordinary editing skills to whittle down voluminous reliable source material into a relatively small articles. When developed only by ordinary capable editors, such articles usually become original research by not properly sampling from all available reliable source material or improperly sampling from non reliable sources (e.g., taking the easy way out and using blogs, etc.). The AfD issues in these cases is whether the article is so far removed from policy (whether it is too deep into original research, etc.), that it is better to reboot and start over. '''Opinion:''' This topic is a legit, broad scope topic that could include things like Moral rights (copyright law) and Film_colorization#Entertainment_make-overs|Film colorization controversy. Authenticity in Art was a popular topic from 1972 to 1992.http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Authenticity+in+art&year_start=1970&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 Google books shows plenty of top scholars tackling the topic,http://www.google.com/#q=%22Authenticity+in+art%22&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbs=bks:1&ei=82xBTauhE4LEgAejyLiHAg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=6&ved=0CBIQ_AUoBQ&prmdo=1&fp=be1cbffc3081491d with many touching on the issue of physical authenticy/forgery.http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&prmdo=1&tbs=bks:1&q=%22Authenticity+in+art%22+forgery&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&prmdo=1&fp=be1cbffc3081491d Even when nominated for AfD six days after its creation,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authenticity_in_art&action=historysubmit&diff=409951546&oldid=409641378 the problems with the article were few and correctable through the ordinary editing process that happens over time. Successful development of broad scoped topics, e.g., Vampire, Polymath, result in Wikipedia's best articles. This AfD is a very heavy handed approach and more respect and time should have been given to the PROD response given that this article was just created on 19 January 2011. A review of  is warranted as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:DONTBITE)

Comment: The topic is highly notable as evidenced by the numerous sources which have been cited in this discussion.  The article is a new one and it is our |editing policy to develop such articles not to delete them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: take  essay on a phrase, add random references for that phrase (which may or may not take the same meaning for the phrase as the original essay) and get incoherent mess. There is most probably a notable topic here ''somewhere'' (and quite probably several clearly distinguishable ones), but until the article picks which meaning of "authenticity in art" its on, sticks to it, and sources ''that'' meaning, this article will remain fundamentally malformed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A bad |personal essay masquerading as a Wikipedia article supported by many flawed !keeps.  This is the Wikipedia I
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Article has an inbalance of  and . While there may be merit in the topic, I believe that this present expression is a suitable beginning. References serve more as examples to illustrate the POV being presented than as illustrating the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)