Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Prince Charlie (Versailles portrait)


 * 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 userfy. There is a consensus that the subject of this article doesn't yet pass the general notability guideline, but the argument that sources may become available in the future has persuaded me to userfy rather than delete. The article can now be found at User:Bgillesp/Stuart Prince (French portrait). — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bonnie Prince Charlie (Versailles portrait)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I nominate this somewhat reluctantly, since it is an interesting article. Unfortunately, it is based almost entirely on email communication with an anonymous expert. Without a reliable published source, the whole basis of the article disappears, along with the notability of the painting in question. I also note that the painting in question seems to be for sale. StAnselm (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The painting is not for sale, and does have a current owner. The published source is an auction house catalogue concerning a sale made earlier this year. The article has been amended to give the name and website of the paris expert who gave the identity of the portrait. Other references to ongoing discussion with other experts has been removed until such time as they publish their opinions.Bgillesp (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, relatively new article (July 14th, 2012), mark as unsourced, wait for new sources. Francl (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, the sole author has acknowledged that such published sources do not exist. StAnselm (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, sorry, missed talk page arguments. Francl (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite: should hopefully meet all guidelines now.Bgillesp (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references that I can actually access mentions the painting, and the whole thing has a strong WP:OR quality which tends to lead me to believe that we are being used to help sell this painting. I would be more inclined toward good faith about the book references if there were page references, but since there aren't, I am more inclined to believe that they don't discuss this painting. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The painting has been out of circulation for generations; there are no references, neither in books, nor on the net. Please keep to facts stated in the article and not to unfounded opinions; the painting is not for sale. Your "feelings" about "good faith" are subjective. To my knowledge all of the Wiki guidelines we have worked on over the past month have been met. If your intention is to destroy at any cost, then just say you want to kill the article now.Bgillesp (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * REtain but tag for improvement. A portrait of of Young Pretender is certainly notable (if that is what it is).  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can determine, the article exists to advance the argument that this is such a portrait. It doesn't appear to be simply relating some outside consensus. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - this with some reluctance, as the ESSAY is of some interest, as is the portrait. However, Wikipedia is not to be used to argue a case or advance a cause in lieu of actual evidence, and the article certainly does not have multiple reliable sources to back it up. Perhaps userfy and await better sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

All opinions deleted from article; only verifiable facts kept. Now, it does not advance any cause at all, but only informs. All sources are reliable; the word "multiple," used above is subjective. If an unknown painting comes to light, the request for excessive information is a logical impossibility; this does not impair Wikipedia's role to inform. Are you saying that Stonehenge should not exist in Wikipedia because there are not mutiple reliable sources to say what it is or where it came from?Bgillesp (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is just about all fixed now, except for the name of the article. The only problem is, there is no notability - all we have is the art catalogue. What makes this painting special? StAnselm (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, we can respect the work done, but it is now crystal clear that adequate sources simply do not yet exist. Very likely it is just WP:TOOSOON for an article - no doubt one will be possible one day. As for Stonehenge, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument against deletion; but as it happens, there are extensive reliable sources on many aspects of that monument. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is that for Stonehenge, there are articles published, year after year, in popular and scientific journals discussing its origins (or lamenting that they are not known). That doesn't seem to be the case here: this is all just one person's thoughts. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy to change the name of the article to, for example: Stuart Prince; French portrait, if you can tell me how to. The work on this portrait is ongoing; factual discoveries will be written in as they become available; the notability is progressing.Bgillesp (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC) OK; the name of the article has been changed; please confirm if acceptable.Bgillesp (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this misses the point. The article is citing the (as far as I can tell) unpublished, personal opinion of one expert, and then proceeding to lay out that person's argument in the style of advocacy (it may not be actively advocating a position, but it is still running through this expert's unpublished arguments, one by one).  That is not what Wikipedia is for, and changing the article name does little to resolve this problem.  There needs to have been significant coverage of the debate, or at a minimum of the painting, for it to merit an article, and I see no evidence that it has been noticed at all.  We have a painting of an unknown subject (theories aside) by an unknown artist (theories aside) in an unknown private collection, that nobody seems to care about enough for it anything to have appeared in print.  This clearly falls short of the bar. Agricolae (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Experts are entitled to opinion and to express them; that's what they do for a living: their credibility improves our understanding. The description this expert has given is indeed published in French in the given description and the link is in the article. As you say, there is no active advocacy in the article, so your remark about "running through unpublished arguments" seems illogical. The article name was changed because the previous auditor said that this is all that was necessary to bring it into line: in fact all of the changes, asked for since August, have been made. The portrait has only been recently brought to light: debate has been indeed significant, but you cannot have have seen it. Your comment, "nobody seems to care about," is gratuitous, and probably spoken in anger, although I don't see what there is to get angry about. Objectively, there has been no modern exposure of this portrait at all, but thanks to WP, we can inform with just the facts and help knowledge progress: the article in its original form explained a lot of this, but has been reduced by successive rewriting.Bgillesp (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Experts are entitled to their opinion about something notable, and their credibility may improve our understanding, but it does not improve the notability of something otherwise obscure. You say they have published and that the link is given in the article. The only links provided in the article are: 1) the web page of the expert's firm, which as far as I can tell has no information about the portrait and which is self-published anyhow; 2) an auction catalog which includes 197 items, none highlighted more than the next; 3) a generic blog that does not discuss the portrait; and 4) a web page describing a different portrait.  None of these establish notability.  There is no anger involved in my assessment - it is simply based on the fact that the only cited sources are the web page of the expert's firm, an auction catalog, a generic blog and a web page describing a different portrait (and it is poor practice to take a sentence out of context and then characterize my mindset from this distortion - I said 'care enough for something to appear in print' and I stand by that as accurate, at least based on the citations that currently appear in the article, not angry).  Even you yourself admit there has been no modern exposure. Wikipedia is intended to reflect the exposure that something gets/has gotten, not to promote public awareness of something obscure. It is not a soapbox. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bgillesp, this still misses the basic point that without "significant coverage in reliable sources", the article does not pass the threshold of Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. The guideline is quite short. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We are working hard to improve notability.212.198.132.243 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So do that, and then a Wikipedia page could reflect that notability - you don't establish notability by creating a Wikipedia page. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - total lack of notability and reliable sources. Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that this is interesting, but, as the main editor, Bgillesp, says, "The work on this portrait is ongoing; factual discoveries will be written in as they become available; the notability is progressing". However, it still is a very long way from meeting Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. It is time to close this debate, and I thought of doing it myself, but I will leave this suggestion for further discussion. This article should be moved to Bgillesp's user space to allow him to continue to work on it as sources become available. It should not exist in article space until there are better sources. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On bloodlust: a quotation from The Old man and the Boy, by Robert Ruark: "A man who takes pleasure in death just for death's sake is rotten somewhere inside."Bgillesp (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what relevance this has to this painting. Please clarify. Agricolae (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My garden needs to be weeded, and so does Wikipedia. And I would also observe that a weed is a plant that is growing where it is unwanted. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

'Talking about you, not about the painting; you and the rest of this wolfpack.Bgillesp (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down, Bgillesp. We recognise that you are not happy because your article is not receiving wide acceptance. However, wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and this article does not yet meet the notability guideline for acceptance. So accept my recommendation above and allow this to be moved into your name space, where you can work on it as more sources become available. Then, and only then, can it be moved back into article space. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, then perhaps you are unfamiliar with WP:NPA, where it directs editors to: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is not enough coverage in Wikipedia reliable sources for a stand alone article that meets WP:GNG. Starting from a point where the material should not be in article space, the article headed in the wrong direction by promoting the auction house that made the sale, promoting the name and website of the Paris expert who gave the identity of the portrait, etc. Terms such as reliable source and notable have specific meanings in Wikipedia and there doesn't seem to be any effort to adhere to those for this topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2012 (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.