Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter's Home


 * 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. The consensus here is that the article be moved to Henry Voordecker or Henri Voordecker, but I will leave it to those with access to the relevant sources to decide which.  A  Train talk 06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hunter's Home

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a curiosity. Imo a howlingly dull painting, but not either dull or bad enough to confer notability. What should be done is to redirect this to the perp's biography; however this does not exist other than as a redirect to this thing. TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Paintings don't have "perps" they have painters. Your personal opinion on what is "howlingly dull" is of no consequence here. This nomination is a curiosity. Either there are enough sources to support it's notability or there aren't? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some paintings have perps, and this is one of them. If it was given to me I'd junk it and re-use the stretchers.TheLongTone (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Intended re-use of the stretchers is not a valid reason for deletion. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This would have been a successful deletion if it had dealt strictly with notability criteria and not subjective aesthetic response.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The 'point is that the painting is not notable. Catalogue entries leave all mustard uncut. And the howlingly dull comment is certainly only my opinion, but would I think be4 substantiated by the tack of any substantial body of critical exegisis of the work. There should be a biog of this artist, altho I note that the BM's biog is limited to dates of birth and death.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not just take a few days off to enjoy this beauty. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mark the train - that should be the visuals arts list, not the arts one. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Certainly notable. The painting & its period & style are not very appealling to modern taste, which is why it is especially useful to have a rare decent article on a representative. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to Henri Voordecker This particular painting is not of itself notable: the only reference to it I can find that doesn't derive from us is a book listing every painting in the Rijksmuseum. The article itself is the result of a move from Henry Voordecker, under which name I found essentially nothing; however, searching by "Henri" instead of "Henry" produces enough to justify the stubby bio we have here. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If by "it" you mean the painting, this is (apparently) still simply an entry in a list. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection. Would seem a sensible move anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be "sensible" about such a move? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The creation of an article (an artist) that is likely to be more general and notable than a single work (one of his paintings)? It seems he painted more than one in his lifetime? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The artist is not more notable. The artist is barely notable, as has been pointed out by someone else on this page. But the painting, painted over one hundred years ago, hangs at this time in the Rijksmuseum. The notability of the painting easily exceeds the notability of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I guess "barely notable" is good enough for me... along the lines of "Henri Voordecker is generally seen as ntbale only for his 1826 painting Jagerswoning which hangs in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep is the AFD outcome appropriate for moving the article to "Henri Voordecker" (retaining the article). -- do ncr  am  16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously notable. I would guess that what some are finding "howlingly dull" is what others would identify as domestic tranquility—damn those happy people—and the animals too—what right do the animals have to be happy? Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not notable; at least it isn't until someone can find some discussion of this painting. I don't know why someone moved the artist's article to the painting, but so far I've only found discussion of him, and not of it. He's (barely) notable, it is not. Howling boredom, or lack thereof, is beside the point. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Voordecker article. And trim. There are a few books that cite the painting, but it's not widely covered in a critical sense. Notability of the work is not established by sources. Not every work an artist makes is notable. For most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you done a study on the ratio of notable artworks to notable artists? If not how would you reach the conclusion that "[f]or most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself"? Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also, let's not forget that there are notable works by unknown artists? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this line of argument supposed to be taking us somewhere? Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was offering an observation, not a line of argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The point was that, given the totality of an artist's creative output, a very small percentage of their work is tytpically notable on its own. Anthony Gormley is well known for his Angel of the North, as is the work itself, but he has done many non-notable works like the sketch "under my skin" shown here at bottom left. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh. Suddenly I feel all at sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, you made me think of Charlie Ray's Plank Piece. Now that is something that deserves an article.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What are our notability requirements for works of art? I've raised this question at Teahouse. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I did find this 1834 "Notice of new works" where we learn that he had available a painting of chimneysweep, and another of 'a rooster, two chickens and their little ones".96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the preface, this is an exhibition catalogue. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep by moving to Voordecker, and having the painting as its own section within, until the painting itself can be fully fleshed out via WP:GNG / WP:RS. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But you don't have to have a section on the painting in the Voordecker article because you can simply talk about the artist in an article on the painting. For all intents and purposes the artist is long gone but the painting lives on. From our perspective the painting is more important than the artist. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't think of many notable artists who are not "long gone but the painting lives on." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your point? In the absence of notability requirements for works of art we are required to fall back on our own reasoning in reaching these decisions. It is obvious to me that an obscure life, long gone, is not the primary focus here, but rather an object that is displayed in an institution which houses "some masterpieces by Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and Johannes Vermeer." It is ridiculous that such a painting is thought not to meet our standards. The painting is notable. I don't know why this is up for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it is fine for there to exist fairly extensive discussion about individual works by an artist, in an article about the artist. This happens often for long-dead architects, where the list of their architectural works might be almost the entire content in cases where biographical details are not available.  Here we have a situation where there doesn't seem to be enough justification for two separate articles, so cover the painting in the artist's article or vice versa.  I somewhat prefer to have the article title to be explicitly about the artist, thereby logically allowing for coverage of other paintings by them which might emerge. -- do  ncr  am  22:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be two articles. And from what I gather from this discussion this is the only known surviving painting by this artist. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that for most visual artists the fact that their work outlives them (in many cases by centuries) doesn't make them less notable. This painting would simply not exist without Voordecker having painted it. In my own mind this makes Voordecker more important than this one work. Sorry if this seems in some way bizarre to you, or contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't even have guidelines for the notability of works of art. Notability is roughly translatable, in my opinion, into "importance". Yes, the artist painted the painting. But what is the importance of a life after it is over? There aren't even living people who remember this person. But the painting is experienced every day. It has impact at the present time and in perpetuity, until its "life" is over, perhaps in a conflagration or nuclear war. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly don't remember that other Dutch painter guy. Not personally. Is that because his sunflowers are so famous? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally different situation. The life of van Gogh was extensively written about. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are currently seven billion people living on Earth - are you saying that since 99% of those have nothing written about them, they're also not notable or contributing to society as a whole? Alive or dead, the artist created the painting, so the painting should be in the discussion of the artist, in my opinion.  I think the conversation has steered away from the focus of the article and the AfD. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about 99% of seven billion people not contributing to society as a whole. What we have is the painting, not the artist. The artist is not displayed in a museum. If we have information on him, it should be appended to the article on the painting. Unless the life of the artist has been sufficiently delved into they are assumed to be a person not unlike those who lived in their time and place. That which is known about Voordecker does not place him far outside of the group of people he circulated among. On the other hand, the fact that this one painting has survived a span of time from 1826 to 2017 and now hangs in the Rijksmuseum is a fact that sets it apart from most other paintings. The effort to prove notability for this painting is difficult because it is over 100 years old and its notoriety (apparently) never experienced an upsurge. He (the artist) nor it (the painting) were never "discovered" in the long trajectory from 1826 to 2017. This is more a fluke than anything meaningful. The fact that it has remained undiscovered says little about the painting (or the artist). The fact that it has remained undiscovered merely shows that our (collective) preoccupations have been elsewhere. We should not be passing commentary on the history of art. When we vastly cover Kazimir Malevich and Marcel Duchamp we are following the trail of human interest. But they are not all that has been eventful over the history of art. The great museums of the world know this and Wikipedia should be taking its cue from them. Yes, our rule of thumb and guiding principle is that we must see significant coverage in reliable sources before we grant notability to a subject for a freestanding article. But we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we stubbornly adhere to those rules when a painting is found in a great museum of art. We are merely bowing to the pressure of taste and human interest which has manifested itself in much spilled ink over a long period of time but most importantly in recent decades. We should have the common sense to understand that there are countertrends at all times. We have no criteria for notability that are tailored to address the particulars of works of art. If we did those guidelines would surely make allowances for indications of importance such as being in the collection of an important museum of art. This painting is clearly notable to a sufficient degree to have its own article on Wikipedia. It was not made during the digital age and it has not enjoyed an upswing in popularity. Hence its existence has been beneath the radar of sources that are easily accessible to us sitting at our computers. But those shortcomings should not mean that it is inappropriate for an article. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is simply not a notable painting, because there is no significant coverage of the painting in reliable sources. I really want to object to the notion that every single painting that hangs in a major museum is notable. I see no precedent and no basis in policies or guidelines for that claim. Comments such as "certainly notable" or "obviously notable" without further explanation should be discounted by the closing administrator. The nominator's critical assessment of the painting is irrelevant, and led to unproductive diversion. I do not much like the painting myself but if it was discussed extensively in reliable art history books, I would recommend keeping the article. If the painter is notable, then mention the non-notable painting in his biography, with an image to illustrate his style. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you not like the painting? Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A detailed discussion of my taste in art is not relevant to this AfD debate, . If you are curious, we can discuss it on my talk page. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My recommendation to the closing administer is to WP:RELIST the discussion "in an attempt to determine consensus". Sticking to the letter of policy might result in an appending of an obviously important work of art to the name of an artist that is only slightly notable. As far as I can tell policy makes no allowance for works of art aside from WP:GNG. That is not entirely sensible because works of art are a distinct exception to WP:INHERIT in that we certainly should deduce their notability from factors such as the collection in which they reside. At least to some degree we should be relying on the connoisseurship that guides important collections such as the Rijksmuseum which owns this painting. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "obvious". If it were "obvious" then we would all be agreeing to it! Sorry, but simple ownership of a work of art by a major museum, or for that matter even exhibition, has never been held here to be sufficient. There needs to be notable discussion of it, and there isn't. There seems to be some consensus that the painter is notable, and it would help a great deal if people would talk recasting this back as his biography, but about the painting we have no discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no guidelines for the notability of works of art. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have emailed the Rijksmuseum concerning any mentions in commentary over the years that they might know of concerning "The Home of a Hunter" by Henri Voordecker. My prediction is that they will mention more than one instance in which this painting is discussed by an art historian or someone else. But perhaps they will not even respond to my email. Time will tell. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Volume 2, by Friedrich Markus Huebner seems to cover him, as one would expect. Coverage is naturally more likely to be in Dutch/Flemish, French or German than English, though Voordecker has a painting in the Royal Collection. Their page also mentions Hunter's Home, which seems to have been his most significant work. There seems to be a number of different versions of the title in Dutch used over the years, not to mention the Henry/Henri issue - I found more hits for "Henry" than "Henri". The Dutch WP has a decent bio (under "Henry"). Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the vegetation is specifically identifiable. I think there are grape vines overhead and I think it is a geranium in the pot. The landing leading into the house seems especially solid and weighty as each stone is seemingly accurately rendered. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update on the Comment above: The Rijksmuseum has kindly sent me seven instances of references in literature to this painting dating back to 1828. Give me some time to post a more thorough response. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to Henry Voordecker, or Henri Voordecker if that is more prevalent (formerly Delete ) Agree with that this is not a notable painting; I actually happen to like it, but that fact is just as irrelevant as the fact that many of you don't. Half of the already-short article is WP:COATRACKed with the information about Voordecker rather than the artwork itself (cf. The Night Watch, one of the truly notable pieces at the Rijksmuseum); in my opinion this is a pretty strong indication of the lack of depth of coverage. I would also oppose renaming this article to Voordecker, as I can find no evidence that the artist is notable either. The work does hang in one of the great museums of the world, this is true; but as someone who has spent some time at that museum, I would hardly that expect every one of the thousands of works I saw there, let alone their total collection of 1 million objects, would have its own article. They are all significant enough to be displayed there, but the overwhelming majority of them are not notable enough to be sufficiently covered in independent, reliable secondary sources to even warrant a mention on the Rijksmuseum page, let alone have their own article. I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art, but I am fairly certain that this particular one wouldn't meet them.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your belief that the artist is not notable is so clearly wrong that it greatly detracts from your opinion about the painting! Probably none of the long list of sources given at the Dutch WP bio are in English and free on the web, but there are easily enough that are to demonstrate notability, and several are mentioned above. Plenty of period artists that didn't have entries in Benezit have survived AFD. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I welcome your refutation, but simply saying it is "clearly wrong" doesn't help. Neither does a mention in Benezit Dictionary of Artists; from the website itself, Benezit’s distinguishing features include its entries on obscure artists. Mentions, even a lot of them, don't establish notability, nor do the number of search engine hits you found. I read the (translated) bio you listed as well; there is exactly one reference on that page, which is unfortunately a dead link. The literature section entries, all 17 of them, are dictionary entries or catalog listings. I personally do not see anything that would lead me to believe that he passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST; if you think he does, I encourage you to prove me wrong, and if so I would be happy to change my !vote to Move.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and then move and refocus this to be a biographical article about the artist with appropriate discussions of his artworks. Per the Dutch Wikipedia bio article and the sources listed there, this artist's work is collected in the Rijksmuseum, the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, and the Belgian Royal Collection, and accordingly passes WP:ARTIST. He was notable when he was collected and per WP:NTEMP remains so.  And I can't fathom any basis for concluding that Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of 19th century art would be improved by removing verifiable content about such an artist. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually thought about writing, after I claimed that I did not see passage of WP:ARTIST, that it would depend on your definition of "several". Some sources do claim "several" is three or more (or even two or more), but my personal rule of thumb is several is more than a few which is more than a couple, which would necessitate at least greater than three. If consensus is that "several" includes three, then I agree with you, but I would also say that we should replace an ambiguous word such as "several" with "at least 3".  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted above, he is also in the (British) Royal Collection. A birthday present from Victoria to Albert, no less. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Then I would agree he passes WP:ARTIST.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I wrote to the Rijksmuseum the following:

I am wondering what other published commentary might exist on the painting in your collection by Henri Voordecker titled The Home of a Hunter, object number SK-A-1157.

I am inquiring because a discussion presently underway on the English Wikipedia concerns the availability of further commentary on the painting.

I feel that the painting is a great treasure and surely a worthy subject for an article on the English Wikipedia but others argue that there is scant information pertaining to commentary that might have transpired over the painting's lifetime for instance by writers on art history but actually by anyone of note.

''My argument is that of course the painting would have been substantially mentioned over its long lifetime. Do you have any information on this that you could share with me that I could then pass along to others?''

I received this as a response:

Thank you for your inquiry. I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you looking for quotes from (prominent) art historians ‘proving’ this work is an important piece? Anyhow I’ve updated the list of literature references dating back to 1828. Hopefully this will be of a help to you. Please find the list below. Within a couple of days these titles will appear on our website too.


 * Ad van Pinxteren, Het Rijks op reis; Het Volk Verbeeld, Goltziusmuseum (Venlo), 1993, nr. 41.


 * Een eeuw apart: het Rijksmuseum en de Nederlandse schilderkunst in de 19de eeuw, Amsterdam 1993, p. 24, afb. 22.


 * All the paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam: a completely illustrated catalogue: first supplement: 1976-91, Amsterdam/ The Hague 1992, p. 91.
 * Friedrich Markus Huebner, De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Den Haag, 1944, afb. 31.
 * Beschrijving der schilderijen in 's Rijks Verzameling van kunstwerken van moderne meesters in het Paviljoen Welgelegen te Haarlem, 's Gravenhage 1880. 'Jagers-huishouding'.
 * Lijst der kunstwerken van nog in leven zijnde Nederlandsche meesters, welke zijn toegelaten tot de tentoonstelling voor den jare 1828, Amsterdam, 1828. 'Een buitenhuis, waarvoor zich lieden met kippen en duiven vermaken'.
 * Beoordeelend overzigt der voornaamste, op de Amsterdamsche tentoonstelling van 1828, toegelaten kunstwerken, van nog in leven zijnde Nederlandsche meesters, Amsterdam: 1828, p. 28. "Van dit stuk zijn vele partijen fraai geschilderd, maar aan het geheel ontbreekt harmonie en eenheid".

Me again:

The above references may not be available for online inspection but I think we here at English Wikipedia have a suggestion that the painting has been the subject of commentary in sources that we would consider "reliable". Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This would seem to confirm notability. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Agree with that "I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art". My stance would be that the onus is on an editor to present reasons why an artwork hanging in an important museum is not important. The default position should be that a work of art included in any important collection implies notability for our purposes. This is an important exception to WP:NOTINHERIT. As concerns works of art it is connoisseurship that is of ultimate importance. Inclusion in great collections of art by definition confers importance on works of art. Are connoisseurs and museums and important private collections infallible? No, but such inclusion is a good enough indicator for our purposes to consider the work notable. Age should be another factor. Preserving a work of art is not trivial. We have a good indication that a work of art is notable if it has been kept in good condition for one hundred years. There is expense involved. This is not a consumer item that is disposable and replaceable. Therefore old paintings in prestigious collections should by default be considered notable and the onus should be on an editor to present an argument that such an art object is not notable. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt that would fly. Even the best museum collections have accreted some very odd or minor stuff. Would you restrict this to paintings? It certainly wouldn't work for other types of artwork. The main reason we don't need such a policy is that in fact very few people create articles on non-notable historic art in museums (as opposed to new contemporary art, where many do, often with some sort of COI). Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think consensus should have veto power of the creation of articles. I don't think articles should be created if there are no sources saying anything about an art object. What would be the point of that? We would have an empty article with just the name of the artwork and the great museum of the world housing it. Therefore I think I agree with what you are saying that we should not create articles with no verifiable information on the artwork based solely on the argument that it is in a great museum. But once we have some information, the argument is that it fails notability should not be allowed, because that some information, plus the fact that it is in a great collection, and perhaps that it is quite old too—should rule out the argument that it is not notable. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we have a large number of articles "with just the name of the artwork and the great museum of the world housing it" - and a picture, measurements etc. These were created en masse years ago, most by the same couple of people. But all these are highly notable, often really famous, works. There are still plenty of very well-known works without articles at all, so naturally people normally concentrate on these.  There is a huge amount of art history literature, much of it easy to find on the internet, if you know how to search. But some areas are rather ignored by international art history, and 19th-century genre painting is one of them; most or all extended coverage will be in the local languages only. Central and Eastern European art has similar problems at earlier dates. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend not to think any article on a work of art is unfortunate. I don't think editors want to create articles for the sake of creating articles. It may be hard to find reliable sources but I don't think articles with individual works of art as the subject are created by editors for no reason. There could be "conflict of interest" reasons and that I oppose. Promotion of artworks is counterproductive for most readers except those that stand to gain. But I find greater importance in the artwork than in the artist. In fact I find the two unrelated. An article on a work of art is a greater undertaking, in my opinion, than an article on an artist. Artists are people and we know what people are. But artworks defy full explication. This despite the fact that they are finite entities. They are actually very limited. Most works of art are silent and most works of art don't move. And yet they are discussed. People hailing from various walks of life weigh in with opinions and observations on something as simple as a sculpture or a painting. Many paintings, for instance, have a ton of commentary written about them. The inclusion of a selection of that commentary in an article on a work of art makes for a very worthwhile article, in my opinion. And I should add that I think images are super important. In my opinion ideally Wikipedia would benefit from giving editors a little slack on creating articles on individual works of art. To that end we should consider the inclusion in respectable collections, as well as the age of the object, to be criteria contributing to the notability of works of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are unfortunate when they take the top of google searches, displacing more useful sources for the reader, and giving WP articles a bad reputation. Fortunately few ones like this are created these days. But this is off-topic here, and this page is already much too long. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 23 October 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.