Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age of Flanders


 * 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. Possible renaming and article improvement is left to regular editorial processes. RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Golden Age of Flanders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very ill-defined concept. Unlike the Dutch Golden Age, this "Golden Age of Flanders" is hardly ever used, and the definition varies (and doesn't match the one used in the article). Broadly speaking, it would encompass the period 1400-1650 or thereabouts, but the few sources that use the term don't agree or really try to define this.

There are only a few book sources that use the term, one accompanying an exhibition about the period (in that case encompassing the 15th and 16th century), and one source mentioning in passing "another golden age of Flanders" (sic!), by which they mean the 15th century only.

Removing the recent exhibition from the search results rather convincingly shows that "Golden Age of Flanders" is not a common term for any period in the history of Flanders, and should thus not be the subject of an article.

Note also that the current article is largely an unattributed copy-paste from Antwerp, the "Emperor Charles V" article from the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia, Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (and perhaps others I didn't immediately see). Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a fairly well-established concept in Dutch, but doesn't seem to be much used in English. It effectively means the periods when Bruges and Antwerp were the main commercial centres of northern Europe (roughly late 14th to late 16th century), before the rise of Amsterdam and the "Dutch Golden Age". It's also used in art history and music history with slightly different (but largely overlapping) periodisation. The article as it stands conflates it with "Antwerp's Golden Age", which is much more restricted in scope. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is an established period of flemish history. English sources for the concept do exist (the term "Flemish golden age" is more used than "Golden age of Flanders" though, and that explains why there are fewer books using the latter term), altough they are not as common as the ones in Dutch and they may conflate the earlier Flemish golden age with the later Dutch golden into a single "Flemish and Dutch golden age". I have adjusted the article in order to take into account what User:Andreas Philopater and User:Fram have said. Perhaps we can add other sources in Dutch and French + informations about music. Anyway, for me the article can stay and its scope should be extended as User:Philopater has pointed out. I have also removed the public domain stuff and in part reworded the article.Barjimoa (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I get quite a few results for "Golden Age of Antwerp" or "Antwerp's Golden Age". Perhaps it should be returned to its original, tighter scope and re-titled. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem (or one of the problems) is that there isn't one Flemish Golden Age (or Golden Age of Flanders). There is the 15th century, when Bruges was the economic centre, and together with Ghent, Leuven and Brussels the artistic centre. There is the 16th century, which is mainly an economic story. There is the late 16th century and 17th century, which is a scientific golden age (Mercator, Dodoens, Lipsius, Vesalius, ...). And there is the 17th century, where Antwerp is part of the artistic Golden Age (mainly situated in the Northern Netherlands with the Dutch golden age), but where the remainder of Flanders only played a very minor role. Most of the books and other sources which discuss the "Flemish Golden Age" are about the 17th century painters (Rubens, Van Dyck, Jordaens, Teniers), and often in the context of the Dutch Golden Age. Some sources explicitly discuss multiple Flemish Golden Ages.


 * So the concept is very ill-defined and indicates different periods depending on the topic of interest. Trying to write this down would probably lead to serious WP:SYNTH problems though. An article on "Antwerp's Golden Age" perhaps is possible, assuming it doesn't face the same issues. Fram (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have looked at what you said and largely you are right on the "multiple" flemish golden age. I think that the opening paragraph should say that the term has a different periodization depending on the subject. And then each section (economy, art, music, science, etc) should give the details and for the 17th century art explain that it becomes also treated within the context of the Dutch golden age.Barjimoa (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This needs a further input.
 * Rename and Restructure -- The core of the article seems to be about the entire Netherlands before the Dutch Revolt, when Brussels and Antwerp were more important than Amsterdam and Rotterdam. From the time of the Revolt, there were de facto two separate countries that were at war with each other for 80 years (except the 14 year truce).  If provided with a new title and introduction, this has the makings of an interesting article, or at least may have, if the author is not trying to bring in material about the United Provinces after their revolt.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 21:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now keep -- I am still not quite sure that the title is quite right, but the article is now much focused on 1500-67, during part of which Brussels (rather than Vienna) was the (or an) imperial capital. It concentrates on the period before the break up of the Netherlands, with the start of the Eighty Years War.  As I said in my previous comment, it makes an interesting article, now it has been shorn of material on a later period, when Flanders was a mere outlying province.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, the 1500-1567 time was the original focus of the article, and the reason for the deletion nomination. What are the sources that declare this to be the Golden Age of Flanders, and not a much larger period, or an earlier period, or a later one, or perhaps even more than one? We have the exhibition focusing on the economic golden age during this period, and that's about it. Nothing seems to have changed fundamentally since the nomination, so I don't quite understand why you now change to keep? Fram (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In case this is coming to an end and we Keep, which is obviously still my position, keep as Flemish Golden Age rather than Golden Age of Flanders. Based on the fact that Books use the former name more than the latter. So intro should say "Flemish golden age, also known as golden Age of Flanders etc etc".Barjimoa (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But all the books that use this name ("Flemish Golden Age") are either about 17th century painting (Dutch and Flemish Golden Age, age of Rubens), or are about Flanders strictu sensu, and deal with 15th century Bruges and Ghent; while the article is about the 16th century... 17th century painting, 17th century painting, 17th century painting, 17th century painting only in the book "The Golden Age of Dutch and Flemish Painting", Middle Ages, Bruges and Ghent15th century Bruges, 17th century painting, two Flemish Golden ages, 17th century, 17th century painting. The same applies to news articles using the term, all 11 results seem to point to 17th century painting only, usually in combination with Dutch painting.
 * We shouldn't use a term usually used to describe X or Y, and attach it to Z. If there is no commonly used term for 16th century Flanders, then we shouldn't have an article on it probably, but certainly not one that starts with the false claim "The Golden Age of Flanders, or Flemish Golden Age, is a term that has been used to describe the flourishing of cultural and economic actitivies of the Low Countries around the 16th century", nor ending the lead with the equally false claim that it is " within a "Flemish and Dutch golden age" covering the period from the late 15th to the 17th century. ". The "Flemish and Dutch golden age" is about the 17th century, nothing else. The "Flemish Golden Age" may refer to the 17th century painting, to 15th century Bruges and Ghent, or very, very occasionally to the 16th century, but then only in an economic sense. Speaking of false claims, " The term Flanders in the 1500s referred to the entire Habsburg Netherlands within the Burgundian Circle of the Holy Roman Empire and inclusive of modern-day Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. " Um, what? Just scrap this article please. Fram (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User: Fram, aren't you proposing a too drastic solution for problems easily solvable with edits? If the late 15th/16th century "Flemish golden age/Golden age of Flanders" refers only to economy and cities as you say, then we'll stick to that. If in Art "Flemish golden age/Golden age of Flanderes" leaves us only with 17th century stuff, then we'll stick to that. But I agree in principle with User:Peterkingiron and User:Andreas Philopater insofar as, since Dutch Golden Age already exists, this article should focus primarily on the pre-17th century stuff and IMHO link to Dutch Golden Age for what's already included in there. That doesn't mean we apply X to Z, it's just a matter of practical distribution of content. Barjimoa (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you are using a term predominantly used for two things, to get an article about a third thing which is only called thus in one or two sources (basically, the recent exhibition and articles referring to that exhibition, but nothing else). If you propose to completely rewrite the article to reflect this, then it might be okay. But that won't be "easily solvable with edits", it will mean starting nearly from scratch again, to get a different article than the one you started with. Basically, you keep the title, and that's about it. Fram (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like Peterkingiron, I'm now inclined to come down positively in favour of keeping. My earlier reticence was due to the thinness of use of the term in English, but there does seem to be sufficient sourcing to establish it as viable (though still somewhat vague). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is important, it problemly needs to be rewritten thou by someone.Catfurball (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (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.