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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working in layers[edit]

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

PROD reverted without improvement. Original research since 2006. A search today did not turn up authoritative sources, although I bet there must be some. The article fails WP:V unless it can be substantiated. Rhadow (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the nominator does not appear to have read or understood the article. It explains that "in the early 15th century Cennino D'Andrea Cennini describes how to paint in layers" and so there's an authoritative source in plain sight. It is, of course, easy to find modern sources which confirm this such as the Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art. The nominator also does not seem to understand WP:V which only requires citations for quotations and controversial material. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though there is a case for a merge to Oil painting. It's certainly a thing. I'm mystified by the claimed difficulty in finding sources - there are hundreds, very easily found. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Topic Ban for any more of these unexamined prods and AfDs. This is a technique so well known even I've heard of it. It's obvious (as for all the others) that the nominator is making no efforts at WP:BEFORE before any of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been a core technique in oil painting for hundreds of years and as Johnbod has demonstrated, there are many sources, historical and contemporary. Working in layers is also done in acrylic painting and in digital painting (e.g., Photoshop or Painter layers). The article does need some work, but there is nothing like copyvio that requires deletion. A highly notable topic and no insurmountable content problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oil painting or other suitable article on the basic processes of painting. Am I missing something here? Virtually all artistic painting processes are done in layers, typically beginning with the ground or gesso. Paint takes time to dry, and painters tyically come back to a painting over a period of weeks or months to apply successive layers. Et voila: layers are born. This is just the way it is. I guess there are single layer monocolour minimalist paintings, but even something like an Agnes Martin has a carefully prepared ground several layers. Do we need an article on single-layer paintings? No. There is no need for this article, or other articles like

walking by moving legs
breathing by inhaling
writing with words
chewing while eating 198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are missing something here. Fresco, watercolour, & most gouache/bodycolour/chalk dry within seconds to a couple of hours, and don't ever or at least usually work in layers, nor I think does tempera, so the concept was new at the start of oil painting. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the opposite? "Working in layers" is the optical blending of a fast-drying medium, rather than being able to re-work paint in a still-workable state - even if the second is applied in layers, the layers don't necessarily remain in the finished work. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the article, and say this. But it is optical blending. Apparently you can do it in tempera though (says the article), but not in fresco. Note Wet-on-wet too. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had ever painted, you would know that one almost never applies paint (or watercolour for that matter) in a single layer. There's really no "single layer" painting process other than paint by numbers.198.58.171.47 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And fresco for one, as I keep saying. If you're going to be a smartarse, at least get it right. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresco? I looked that up on Wikipedia: "In painting buon fresco, a rough underlayer called the arriccio is added to the whole area to be painted and allowed to dry for some days." I'm not trying to be a smartass. I am simply pointing out the fact that all painting process except painting by numbers typically involve painting in successive layers to achieve a visual effect. Even painting your kitchen typically involves a primer and two coats of paint.. aka "painting in layers".198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how fresco works, that's not what "painting in layers" means. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - the arriccio is plain plaster, as is the next intonaco coat. Then the painting begins, and in "true fresco" has to be finished in a few hours for each area. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can definitely be beefed up enough to stand on its own, but not on the back of just one citation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Turn it into a disambiguation page that links to Glaze (painting technique), Fat over lean, Wet-on-wet, and any other relevant pages. "Working in layers" is a somewhat ambiguous term; to develop the topic would require repeating everything that's in those other articles. Ewulp (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2017 (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.