Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Knight at Prayer in a Chapel, Preparing Himself for Combat


 * 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. There is no consensus to delete. The recently added references merit more discussion on the article talk page, before a merge may be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A Knight at Prayer in a Chapel, Preparing Himself for Combat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability for the painting found after a search, fails WP:GNG Hzh (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I found this but I don't think it adds much. Thincat (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It actually adds a lot. It's two pages on the location of the panting, it's style and the historical background.96.127.244.27 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with and redirect to Fleury Francois Richard. The article on a painting is a very brief one that does not say much, and we do not need to have lots of articles like that in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to Fleury Francois Richard.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge or redirect or anything except delete really. Deletion would be quite wrong. Thincat (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I added three sources mostly reports on its acquisition by the Musee de Lyon. The problem with the article is that the actual title of the painting is Un Chevalier se préparant au combat. Someone translated the French wiki article of that name, and translated the title while doing so. This is like saying that Crépes Suzette should be called Thin Pancake Suzette. No one mentions "A Knight at Prayer in a Chapel, Preparing Himself for Combat", because that painting does not exist. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, Sources have been added. Great work again 96.127.244.27, and Wikipedia's visual arts collection owes you gratitude, thanks, and a "please jump on in" and grab a username. You have saved two articles today and both explained and shown us how it's done. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a keep/delete opinion here. The sources are pretty minor. But the painting has been around for 200 odd years, so it is likely that there are in-depth sources somewhere. Maybe. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Ok, I added the source by Thincat above, which goes into quite a bit of detail on the painting (I read French), and brings it up to a weak keep.96.127.244.27 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep after changes, for which thanks! Probably needs a rename though the idea of a firm "actual title" at this period may be questionable unless it was exhibited, as this was. "Knight Preparing Himself for Combat"? Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree it needs a title change. Isn't the original French title the best? Is there a wiki policy on creating new English names for foreign works? 96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No - see WP:VAMOS. Otherwise we'd get things like Иван Грозный и сын его Иван 16 ноября 1581 года! Never mind Japanese stuff. Ideally we can source the translation, but if not we should still do it, as any Anglophone exhibition catalogue would. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The absence of multiple sources that discuss the painting in detail is still problematic, the rest being trivial mentions other than the book. It does not indicate the painting has lasting notability as it appears to have been largely ignored by art historians after that was published. Hzh (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so. First, there are two published in-depth sources. The first is the book mentioned above, and ref #1 in article. the second is a nine-page widely cited article on the painting by Marie Chaudonneret, in a museums bulletin. The painting has thus been discussed at length by a contemporary critic, whose writing on the painting has been in turn •referenced by •other •authors. So there you have four art historians who think it is valuable enough to write about. When you add all the other brief mentions, and items like this 1807 mention in the Literary, Philosophical and Political Review of 1807, you have GNG. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.