Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites


 * 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 redirect to Franciszka Themerson. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jane023 with the following rationale "rv Prod, made new articles about the defunct company and the current company which prove the notability", which is akward since it is not an article about the company but about a painting, suggesting it was copypasted and in anyway is meaningless here. This series of postcards exists, and has an entry at Europeana, but that's about it - except few passing mentions I cannot find a single in-depth coverage of this topic. Not all artwork is notable, and I just don't see how this one can pass without as much as a single reference except a catalogue entry. PS. I thought about merge to the artist page (Franciszka Themerson), but I am not sure if it is good style to list artist works in separate sections... still, perhaps it can be somehow salvaged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I put my reasoning on the talk page, where I believe these notability discussions are supposed to take place first. Jane (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing as such talk pages have very little visibility, in cases which I deem less controversial I prefer to discuss it here, so I suggest you copy your comment here. And I deem it not very controversial, as I still don't see - and you have not presented - any sources which show this series of postcards received any recognition beyond some catalogues entries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I prefer to keep comments about notability on the talk page of the item, since whether or not the page is deleted, it is best to keep the rationale with the page itself. I and many others have trouble navigating the Articles for deletion archive. Unfortunately, my opinion about whether or not I disagree with your comments above is irrelevant, since I created the page. I am amazed that you dismiss the Polish ministry of Culture which selected this collection as 1 of 10 important works of Poland art in 2016. The whole list is here. Jane (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the talk page of the deleted article is deleted as well, it is better for the discussion to take place here; you are welcome and encouraged to link this discussion from the said talk page. And I am still waiting to see better sources. Your link to  is a link to an untitled search result page from Europeana and contains no mention of the Ministry. If you can provide a link to a webpage where the Polish Ministry of Culture discuses the significance of this work, please by all means do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be here: d:Wikidata:Europeana Art History Challenge. Jane (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a very nice initiative, and I do want to thank you for contributing many new entries to Wikipedia, Jane. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of all artwork, only of important ones, and what is important is covered by WP:N guideline. There's a difference between Mona Lisa and a painting that has only a catalogue entry; also note WP:NOTINHERITED - works of a notable artist are not notable by the virtue of being created by said artist. I see in your contributions several other articles that are of dubious notability. Please take time to improve their sources, keeping the above in mind. You are welcome to ask me for advice if the concept of notability is not clear. PS. The page you linked does not mention the Polish Ministry, just "Each country's ministry/department of culture then made their own process for deciding these works." Anyway, Wikidata is not a reliable source, because no wiki is a reliable source for Wikipedia. I'll however ping User:Wittylama who wrote that section there, maybe he can provide us with a better source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, are you actually questioning whether the works are considered of national importance? Because I really don't see your point of questioning the judgement of the Polish ministry of culture or the library, because I have always regarded National Libraries to be valid authorities on Wikipedia. Demanding that all artworks on Wikipedia have the same amount of notability as the Mona Lisa also seems silly here. I find it quite surprising to read that you feel I have written articles that are of dubious notability. Please enlighten me which those are! Jane (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Let's keep this simple. Can you produce a single verifiable reference which satisfies WP:N for this work? In simple words, can you link to a non-user generated page where a reliable authority has made the claim that this work is important, or has reviewed it in depth? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well your request of "in depth" would be all the books written that mention this archive, though since it only moved in 2015 to the Library those sources written previously to 2015 will not mention the Library. As for a non-user page regarding the nature of the 280 cultural project, see here. Jane (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That article does not mention Gaberbocchus. I cannot explain our policies more clearly without quoting myself. Please read them again. You clearly do not understand the concept of Notability and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. As well as WP:CITE, come to think of it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, it seems we have come full circle now, as in response to your original "prod" I created the article on the Gaberbocchus Press which you called "meaningless". A Google search on "Gaberbocchus" shows it is undeniably linked with "Themerson archive". Jane (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Full circle of you not understanding Wikipedia policies. The sentence above has no bearing on this discussion. Per WP:AGF I am assuming that you are not purposely trying to lead this discussion of track, but for the n-th time I will ask you to familiarize yourself with policies such as WP:N and WP:CITE.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's hard for me to follow your track of thought. Mentioning Wikipedia's notability policy does not help to establish your case on the non-notability of an object declared by the Polish minitry of culture to be of national cultural importance. In case you were wondering, the English Wikipedia is not only interested in obects of national importance to the USA. You seem to want to doubt the judgement of the library, the Polish ministry, or Europeana, and I simply cannot imagine why. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link in which a reliable source (like Europeana or the Polish Ministry) discuss the Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites in depth or fat least several paragraphs? And let me preemptively say that a link to Europeana or another museum or such catalogue showing that "Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites" has been displayed or is owned by them is not sufficient. I am asking for an article about "Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites", or one that shows this collection/artpiece has received some attention beyond being mentioned in passing. The fact that some official from the Polish ministry presumably (I say presumably because I still have to see proof, i.e. document connecting "Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites" to the Polish ministry) decided that this would be an interesting topic for Europeana-Wikipedia collaboration, sadly, only means that that said official also is unaware of the WP:N requirement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't read Polish. Piotr, it is not our job as Wikipedians to check the work of respected institutions, we can only reflect the public information they share. There is no question that the library recently digitized a collection and and reported it to their ministry as being of national importance that subsequently was reported to europeana as being one of 10 works of national importance. That the library gave the collection a name that you don't like does not detract from its notability. Jane (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jane, it is our job as Wikipedians to follow the project policies, such as WP:V or WP:N. "There is no question that the library..." - but there is. "It was reported to europeana as being one of 10 works of national importance." - says who? Please cite a source that says so. If you cannot read Polish, with all due respect, I'd suggest focusing on topics for which you can find WP:RS. "That the library gave the collection a name that you don't like does not detract from its notability." Please don't use straw hat arguments. I never said I dislike the name of this article. Me or you liking or disliking the name does not detract from its notability - or its lack of notability, because you still haven't made a single argument for asserting it is notable except for your own personal view that WP:ITSIMPORTANT. And as an experienced Wikipedian, you should know better then to create articles without sources backed up only by your own subjective feel of their importance. Rather then arguing ad nauseum, please provide sources - or stop repeating claims about importance, based on nothing else but your own feelings about the topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I put the sources in the article and find them sufficient for the reasons I stated above. You have yet to convince me they are insufficient. I see no reason why we should doubt the name the library gave to Europeana. Jane (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Franciszka Themerson for lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Expand within the context of the artist and split out summary style as the sources necessitate. czar  22:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Czar, I am confused - why do you feel there is a lack of multiple reliable sources for the collection? Europeana, the Gaberbocchus Press itself and the Polish ministry of culture as authorities are not in dispute here. Are you objecting to the lack of English language sources? Because that has never been a requirement for notability on Wikipedia. This news article clearly states why the library's collection is considered to be of national importance. Jane (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for User:Czar, but I'll note that the topic of the news article is Themerson Archive, while the topic of this deletion discussion is titled Gaberbocchus some of the old favourites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there is no one Themerson Archive, it makes sense that each Themerson archive holder would call their collection by another name. Note that there are archives in at least 3 countries, which is not unusual for internationally respected artworks of international artists. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There needs to be commentary about the actual subject of the article. WP:42 explains this concisely. Listings from websites doesn't give us anything about which to write an article. czar  13:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Czar, I am sorry you feel that the article is not about its subject, but I respectfully disagree with you. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Franciszka Themerson. The collection has no independent notability - it is always discussed in the context of Themerson. At least within Google results. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  14:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting choice to redirect. Why would you redirect to Franciszka Themerson? Also, why must it show up in Google results in order to prove independent notability? What does that even mean? Are you referring to independent work by Franciszka Themerson? Jane (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, Jane023, I normally love your work, but this one is a bad idea. At least this AfD has explained where these articles on non-notable artworks come from. Wikidata, which was at one time a good idea but has become an increasingly annoying "one site to rule them all". Articles like Bellringer of Caernarvon in costume of trade, Mourning portrait of K. Horvath-Stansith, View of Mt. Triglav from Bohinj, Articles for deletion/Portrait of Goffredo Mameli (the first I encountered), Man Entering a Room (why not create an article on the artist first in this case?), ... Many of the articles are on undoubtedly notable artworks, but they seem to have been made indiscriminately, just because they are listed on wikidata. Fram (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect afterwards I believe at best as any of this could easily be moved to the other article without having its own article therefore. There's also nothing else to actually insinuate its own article or any future signs. SwisterTwister   talk  20:14, 15 June 2016 (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.