Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956


 * 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 delete. Topics are notable because they have significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. A list of paintings at the Rijksmuseum is of course important, it is one of the major museums of art, but it is very unclear why the list of paintings in the 1956 catalogue would be worth a separate article. This specific selection of paintings is not especially notable (again: the paintings are notable, the museum is notable, but the paintings on display in one particular year?) Fram (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the year, but about the group of paintings on show in the post-WWII years in the Rijksmuseum and this is the year of the catalog edition used. I believe the selection of paintings on show during directorships of top museums are notable, especially those selections for which tourist catalogs have been published. This list is representative of the paintings on show during the directorship of D.C. Roell and therefore notable as a historic record of the taste in painting at that time as well as being a record of the attributions and catalog numbers per object (the current catalog numbers were devised in the 1970s). This is data that is referred to in art history publications of the period circa 1930- circa 1975. All catalog numbers have since changed, many attributions, and some paintings have been sold or restituted to heirs of rightful owners. Jane (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So then the article title has been so chosen because it's all from your single catalogue source? We don't title articles in this way, in my experience. I see you've also created 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, based on another "a booklet of illustrations." Surely we're not going to spawn multiple list articles based on different catalogues and booklets. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shawn, as I said on my talk page, the reason the year is named is because you need to be specific on Wikipedia. The 120 paintings selection is even more notable, precisely because it has reduced a choice number of 1200 down to 10% considered (at that point in time) to be highlights. I believe we should have these lists for all top museums, and not just for paintings, but also all top artefacts that can found in visitor catalogs in general. I am surprised and somewhat confused that a temporary exhibition could be considered more notable than the collection on show in a top museum. The latter are generally well covered in art history sources, including individual pieces in a traveling show, but not nearly as well as collection items are, across the board. Jane (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)Like I said on your user page, it is much better to present articles on the collection of museums based on periods and regions, not based on date of display / catalogue, which is not a defining characteristic. A list of Dutch Golden Age paintings at the Rijksmuseum can include the 1956 catalogue number and attribution, and can list those paintings that were in the museum collection at some time but no more. That would be a perfect list (though perhaps this specific example would need to be split further), on a notable subject. The 1956 catalogie though is referenced in many other publications (I presume, I haven't checked, I do see that there were other editions fairly frequently), but is not as such the subject of significant independent attention. In short, I don't think this is the right way to present this information at all, and is not helpful to readers (people would to browse to multiple similar catalogue lists to see the changed attributions and the changes in taste which you want to show with this list, so it defeats its purpose). Fram (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing would be great, but is not always possible. A well-known painting such as The Night Watch can be referred to by name, but less well-known paintings (that may be highly notable for multiple reasons) will often need to be referred to by catalog number and the Rijksmuseum has changed their catalog numbers regularly over the centuries. By creating lists during key periods and listing these numbers, it increases findability. Again, to be clear, all of these paintings are notable enough to have their own articles. Jane (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Repurpose this and 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum into a retitled list that meets our list naming policies, or delete. While I appreciate the work that has gone into these, they would set a truly terrible not-so-good precedent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, or maybe move to Commons I don't think the precedent is too alarming, if only because few people have the patience to produce such lists. But I agree we don't want too many such lists. Still-life paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720 is a somewhat similar article, recreating an exhibition in Amsterdam & Cleveland in 1999/2000. I think the case for that is stronger. We don't have a list of the current catalogue, which would be more useful, if probably a lot longer. This could be expanded to that, with a field for those in the 1956 one. That would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, as I stated already on my talkpage, this is not an exhaustive list of all paintings in the collection in 1956, but just the paintings-on-show in 1956. If we published the entire current catalog I think we are at the edge of notability. The current tourist highlights catalog is broader and of many of the old "friends" are in there, but also some gold and silver objects, bust sculptures, etc. I was able to make this list with all of the images, simply because I know they are there. I have been creating these for awhile, and e.g. was going to complete List of artists in the Metropolitan Museum of Art guide with all of the images we now have, but if you are just going to vote to delete these I won't bother. Jane (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * a) Exhibitions (at least major ones) are a different kind of beast, since these are temporary by definition, and often have many more reliable independent sources about the full exhibition. b) Some of these lists are relatively easy to make with Wikidata queries, so the patience needed to produce them has bveen vastly reduced. No objection to a move to Commons if this kind of list / gallery is welcomed there of course. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talkpage, I disagree. Of course museum collections change at a slower rate, but they are also just temporary (see your Leuchtenberg Gallery). Jane (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unless this is the display of Dutch art to which all others are compared, there is no great notability attached here. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly is that. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. If I understand correctly, the rationale for this article is that it is encyclopedic to identify what artworks major museums had on display at various times. But I respectfully disagree with that, and the article has no sources that appear to establish that the compilation of this information is notable. Even if it is notable, it would probably be better served by being kept in Wikisource or somewhere like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate why you feel that the set of works on display in a major museum is non-notable? Notability is based on the museum as a respected institution. We don't need to establish that. Your vote to delete is therefore not clear. Either you feel collections of top museums are non-notable, or you feel that museum catalogs do not accurately represent their collections. I disagree with both of those views. Jane (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that museum catalogs do not accurately represent their collections. However, to be convinced that this information is notable, I would like to see some sources that particularly take note of monitoring the collection on display at a major museum at a particular time -- for example, noting that a particular artwork was on display in 1956, then in storage in 1963, then back on display again in 1968, and was sold to a different museum in 1975. And even if the information is notable, I don't understand why it should be kept in Wikipedia as opposed to Wikisource, since this is basically a reformatting or reproduction of most of the content of a publication of the Rijksmuseum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An example of a painting no longer in the collection since 1956 but which was on show at that time is River Landscape with Ferry. There are more cases like that. Most of art catalog literature mentions art collections at a specific point in time, so your request for the other information is confusing for me. I don't understand what you are proposing. Maybe you can give an example. Jane (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarity, here is a list of heritage items with a single source and the items may be added or subtracted over time (due to destruction/burning/rebuild). This example is a list at a provincial level, but at a national level, you have this list for the Netherlands, a list that has been compiled by a single source but is only referred to by institution name. In such cases, the original single-source list has been augmented with images from Commons. I believe that what museums of national importance hold to be worthy of display are just as notable as these other list items. Jane (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am keeping my recommendation as is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me why I haven't been able to convince you. Is this because you don't believe groups of paintings are notable in the ways other groups of heritage are notable? I am really trying here to understand your recommendation. Jane (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2017 (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.