Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The siege of San Sebastian (1813)


 * 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. There's was a suggestion to redirect to Siege of San Sebastián, which I would normally do, consensus or not, per WP:ATD. But, The siege of San Sebastian (1813) seems like such an unlikely search term, I'm going to pass on that. If somebody else wants to be WP:BOLD and create the redirect, who am I to stand in their way? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The siege of San Sebastian (1813)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Proposed deletion, contested by DGG on the spurious grounds of "addition material in Basque WP" (this is in fact a word-for-word translation of the entire Basque article, which as with this translation devotes only two short sentences to the actual topic, the rest being historical background), so bringing this over to AFD to do it the long way. Per the discussion on the talk page, this is not "a painting by an unknown artist", this is a poor-quality English souvenir etching by Thomas Batchelor of the type that were—literally—two a penny before the first illustrated news magazines were introduced in 1842, when newspaper printing presses couldn't handle illustrations so the printed plates were sold separately. I can find absolutely nothing to suggest that this has ever been the topic of any coverage in any source whatsoever (its entry on the museum's website reads in full Anónimo, The Siege of San Sebastian, siglo XIX, grabado coloreado, 51 x 60,8 cm, and Batchelor wasn't an engraver of any note and only appears as an entry in directories of publishers, not as the subject of any discussion in his own right). &#8209; Iridescent 11:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that we need to establish some sort of significance for this image as we cannot just have an article about some random etching without any kind of sources. I did a google image search to find something better and found this image which is bigger and allows for a reading of the text. It's from this website which does credit Batchelor (as Batchelar). However, a search of Thomas Batchelor of Moorfields tells us that he was known as a printer and publisher, not specifically an engraver himself (one directory tells us "Batchelor, Thomas, printer & publisher, 115, Long Alley, Moorfields, 1817U"). So it's entirely possible that the artist is unknown. A google translation of the Spanish website indicates that the image is being used in the Zumalakarregi Museum (or its website) as an artifact and/or illustration of the battle itself. The engraving itself spells the name Batchelar, not Batchelor, and credits the publication of the image to one T. Batchelar. Searching for Thomas Batchelar gives us nothing -- it appears to be common then and now. Adding "publisher" gives us a book, Napoleon and British Song, 1797-1822 (Oskar Cox Jensen) which mentions Batchelar as a "loyalist printer" and central to "loyalist song culture". According to the Pickering & Chatto Antiquarian Booksellers Bulletin, (I can't link the PDF because of the spam filter), Batchelar was a London "ballad printer". Other than that, his name appears in some directories. In the end, we don't appear to have much. The engraving, probably artist unknown, is most likely not significant other than as an illustration. Batchelar appears to be non-notable himself. The image could be used in the article on the seige, with a redirect for anybody who may be searching for the image and has not tried out google yet. Someone with time on their hands could possibly write a sentence about the image for Siege of San Sebastián, as an indication of contemporary interest in the battle itself, although sources appear to be lacking. This was fun, though. freshacconci talk to me  14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. the additional material was an additional reference at least; I can't read Basque to see if there was further content.  If a major museum consider a picture significant enough to put on its own website in a prominent position it's notable (as an analog of the accepting criterion fcr WP:CREATIVE.) DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What "major museum" would that be? San Telmo Museum is a small local history museum so obscure it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and they don't have this "on their website in a prominent position" (here's the website in question should you want to check); this link, which I suspect is what you're referring to, is the subpage for a temporary exhibition in 2013 in which this print was included (and if you scroll down to the photos of the rest of the exhibits you'll see why this one was chosen). I challenge you to find even one single source other than the one-line entry in the museum's catalog—in any language—which even mentions this print, let alone qualifies as "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". As I've already pointed out, and you're studiously ignoring, the Basque article (complete with the "additional reference") is not about this print; other than the single sentence 1813ko Donostiako setioa margolana Donostiako San Telmo museoan dago. XIX. mendeko egile ezezagun batena da eta 1813an gertatu zen Donostiako setioa deskribatzen du. ("The Siege of San Sebastian is a 19th-century painting by an unknown artist in the San Telmo Museum, San Sebastian, depicting the 1813 siege of San Sebastian"), it's just a description of the aftermath of the siege; the additional reference is for the statement that "over 1000 were killed and women and children were systematically raped", not to anything relating to this print. As Freshacconci correctly says above, a case can be made for including this in Siege of San Sebastian to illustrate that the battle generated interest in Britain (although there are much better quality British depictions of the event which would likely do the job better), but it serves no useful function for Wikipedia to host an article which it's literally impossible to expand beyond two sentences. &#8209; Iridescent 17:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * merits its own article in English, but a major museum, sorry, that it is not. The idea that a picture should become notable in Wikipedia terms because it is displayed on a museum website is fanciful and a disregard for WP:GNG, and the analogue with WP:CREATIVE is obscure. If any analogue applies here it is rather "artistic work where the artist has no article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (WP:A9). — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete yes, a local museum whose website states that it's a "Reference center for knowledge and enjoyment of the nineteenth century in the Basque Country" used the illustration on its website for a historical exhibition. This is not the same as being part of a significant exhibition, as is suggested by the biographical guideline for WP:CREATIVE, nor does it confer any notability on this obscure illustration. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Illustrations have never been held in a esteem at a par with formal paintings (compare with comics nowadays and before). However, that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references that elaborate on technique or form or school, but it gathers an attention, and the fact of being anonymous does not detract from both formal and historical context aspects, where the publisher (or printer, above) can be cited. "Local museum", "so obscure"..., yes, runner-up to Best Museum of Europe 2013, no less. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your source is for this museum being runner up or in what category... but I cannot except that any illustration that happens to be featured in a local exhibit on area history therefore automatically becomes notable -- nor do our guidelines allow for this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "A local exhibit": Yes, local, any museum is located somewhere, even Tate Modern. San Telmo lies in Donostia. I agree though that when it comes to individual references to the illustration, sources are scarce. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right and the museum, now apparently repurposed according to its website as the Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship, does look stunning, esp. with its redesign. It's unfortunate we don't have an article on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor was the Commons file for the image properly categorized. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, we also see that the article creator has been prolific in creating this stub across a variety of wikipedia language editions, using different but related usernames. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Wikidata links listed at fr:Musée San Telmo suggest that there was formerly an English article on the museum. Can't find a redlinked deleted file, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't find a deleted article at any permutation of the name, and San Telmo (disambiguation) doesn't include it in any version. Are you sure you're not actually seeing the link to eu-wikipedia (Basque)? &#8209; Iridescent 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the multiple language versions, see the links on the talkpage; it was created as some kind of mass-stub-creation contest. &#8209; Iridescent 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * right and for that "deleted file" thing, when I hover over the grey "English" I now see that it's for a pop-up for "traduit cette page en anglais" so it was just some sort weird setting issue... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment in re "that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references ...", please see WP:INTERESTING. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I think prints can be notable, but this one is not. I can't see that there is anything we could say about the print beyond the bare facts that are already in the article. We don't know who the artist is, the publisher isn't notable, the print itself is not unusual in any way, and there doesn't appear to be any more information about it, not even in Basque or Spanish. It's a pity we don't have anything about the museum though; that may very well be notable. Mduvekot (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Arguments for deletion have been convincing. Redirect to Siege of San Sebastián and use it there. Otherwise, it's a micro-stub of an article on an otherwise non remarkable art piece. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:USEFUL. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It meets the standard of being on permanent display in a major museum, and nothing more is needed. Some articles will always be stubs, and there's nthing wrong with that either.  DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for "on permanent display in a major museum"? Even if you accept the San Telmo as a major museum (which is itself dubious), nobody is claiming that this is part of the permanent collection let alone on permanent display. The link is to a long-gone temporary exhibition in which this was included, not to the permanent collection. &#8209; Iridescent 18:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Struck through your second vote; just because you really don't want something deleted doesn't mean you get to be double-counted. &#8209; Iridescent 18:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While the article is primarily about a painting in a gallery, the siege was a notable engagement of the Peninsula War and might conveniently be expanded to encompass the history of the siege. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Peterkingiron, could you clarify the above? You appear to be advocating deleting the existing Siege of San Sebastián article, overwriting it with this, and then re-expanding this to cover the battle, which makes no sense at all. (Incidentally, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated but this is not an article on a painting, but on a penny-etching; the present-day equivalent would be having a Wikipedia page on an individual issue of a newspaper or magazine.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about the engraving (not painting), and the notability of the siege has nothing to do with the notability of the subject at hand. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had failed to appreciate that we has an article on the siege. Changed vote below.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not find anything to support notability. I don't even understand the title: is "1813" supposed to be the date the work was created, as one would normally expect, or does it refer to the date of the actual siege, in which case we don't know when OR by whom this was done? In fact we know almost nothing about this piece. The battle itself was notable, but not every illustration of it is therefore notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure prod material, had this been a musical recording, A9 would have applied. Here, in lack of a specific WP:SNG, it is WP:GNG that applies. The best "source" I could find is this .pdf from the museum. And that's just not enough. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect (possibly merge) to Siege of San Sebastián, which uses the picture as an illustration. I doubt that the picture is independently notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the Peninsula Campaign was fought and won by a great many British gentlemen, Britain was the world's wealthiest country, the market for prints of that campaign was enormous because Wellington's army was enormous. Even the families of the foot soldiers could afford a print of the battle where a beloved son fought - or fell.  So many of these engravings survive that they decorate the hallways of small hotels, and print shops today have huge stocks of them to choose from. They sell them as upscale tourist souvenirs.  Some engravings of this war are notable: The Disasters of War.   But I see no evidence that this one is. While there is no reason to redirect this, the image itself would make a nice addition to our article Siege of San Sebastián.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added this image to the page on the siege. I think we can SNOW close this now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 25 August 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.