[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this book. This isn't worth a merge to the curator's page because it is unreferenced and doesn't fit well into his her biography. I'm not sure if such a title is worth a redirect to the curator.
SL93 (
talk)
23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and England. SL93 ( talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least.
Jane (
talk)
06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per
WP:BK and
WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her".
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them.
Jane (
talk)
10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 ( talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them.
Jane (
talk)
10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per
WP:BK and
WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her".
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least.
Jane (
talk)
06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Dillian Gordon. "doesn't fit well" makes little sense to me. He made the book.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if it's a book she wrote that's always a valid redirect unless it's so vague as to be useless. It is not vague, so I don't see why not. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Significant coverage is simply missing. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the two listed "References" is another Wikipedia article, the other is the subject of the article. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. Elspea756 ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this book. This isn't worth a merge to the curator's page because it is unreferenced and doesn't fit well into his her biography. I'm not sure if such a title is worth a redirect to the curator.
SL93 (
talk)
23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and England. SL93 ( talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least.
Jane (
talk)
06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per
WP:BK and
WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her".
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them.
Jane (
talk)
10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 ( talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them.
Jane (
talk)
10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per
WP:BK and
WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her".
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least.
Jane (
talk)
06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Dillian Gordon. "doesn't fit well" makes little sense to me. He made the book.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if it's a book she wrote that's always a valid redirect unless it's so vague as to be useless. It is not vague, so I don't see why not. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.
SL93 (
talk)
09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Significant coverage is simply missing. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the two listed "References" is another Wikipedia article, the other is the subject of the article. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. Elspea756 ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)