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 no consensus. Despite the number of bolded keep-!votes, the discussion is less clear whether the painting's notability is sufficiently established to warrant its own article. However, neither the nominator nor the other participants have mentioned any reason why this should not at the very least be merged or redirected, so this should be attempted before a new AFD. SoWhy 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vase of Flowers and Conch Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The painting is already in the gallery of the artist, Anne Vallayer-Coster. As a standalone, we look to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGALLERY. The rest of the information is available by clicking on the image, or if among the artists most notable pieces, a summary paragraph can be added to the artist's bio. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most individual works of art by prominent artists from this period will have been studied by experts, subject to critical discourse, had their exhibition history and provenance traced, etc. In other words, each is likely to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, making them notable independent of the artist herself. This is no exception: see the Met collection page for the type of information that a standalone article could contain, as well as a list of references for further coverage. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see the sourcing, then? Especially that which is independent from the Met? czar 11:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a stub, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have sufficient notability to warrant a full article. Czar, if you expand "References" on the Met's site, you will see a list of a dozen times this work has been published by others. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so would be ignoring WP:NOTGALLERY WP:INDISCRIMINATE ^{00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)} policy, and I'm not convinced that WP needs a separate standalone article about every single piece of art that was ever created or that is on display in a museum. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to #4, stating that "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: ... Photographs or media files with no accompanying text"? If so, there is some accompanying text about the painting (not a lot), the Met's website demonstrates that there is much more that could be said, and the list of references on the Met's site goes to show that there is a lot of literature on it. It would be ideal if Henryshirley or someone else would flesh out the page, but I wouldn't see that as a requirement for not deleting the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my use of the redirect - it came to mind first. I struck and noted correct section, particularly (including only relevant portion for sake of brevity): To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art... ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references at the painting's Met catalog entry indicate sources used in the entry's description (about the artist's life, time period, style), and should not be assumed—nor are they likely—to be about this painting in specific. If the notable aspect of this portrait is a series or a style, those facets should be covered in the artist's article summary style until given warrant (by length or proven sourcing) to split into a separate article. czar 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If I'm not mistaken, this work was exhibited in the salon of 1781 and discussed by Denis Diderot in one of his Salons. I don't have access to the sources at the moment, but I do think expansion is possible. Mduvekot (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires ...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That has not been satisfied. Per my previous statement, the image is already in the gallery of the artist's biography, so it's not actually being deleted from WP - it will continue to exist as will the information about the painting. WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGALLERY should prevail over the keep arguments. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking: are you saying the MET is not sufficiently independent? If so, can you please explain why they are incapable of unbiased a critical assessment or analysis? If it's because they own the work, then let me point out that museums tend to acquire artworks only after they have conducted said assessment/analysis. In my opinion, museums are reliable sources for works in their own collection. Mduvekot (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And another question: Are you suggesting that the article be merged with Anne Vallayer-Coster per Talk:Anne_Vallayer-Coster#Proposed_merge_with_Vase_of_Flowers_and_Conch_Shell? In that case, you might want to withdraw this AfD.

Did you not see that I withdrew the merge proposal? I added the image to the artist's gallery. Editors can add information about the piece in the artist's Exhibition section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, which is why I asked for clarification. I can see that that wasn't obvious, sorry. I'm not sure what you want; delete the article, but in your words it will continue to exist as will the information about the painting. As I see it, that's a merge proposal, only you don't call it that. So, do you want to a) merge, in which case the information is retained in Anne Vallayer-Coster or b) delete, in which case it is removed?Mduvekot (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you would find it confusing, my apologies. I'm happy to try to explain more clearly. The image is part of the artist's Exhibit gallery on her WP biography. The information that is relevant to the painting is included with the image - all you have to do is click on the image, then click on "more details". There is nothing else notable about the painting that warrants it being a standalone article. For an individual painting to qualify as a stand alone, it must be notable beyond the artist's notability which requires verifiability in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This painting does not meet that qualification - there is no "notable" account that justifies it to be separate from the artist's biography. Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Diderot quote I mentioned above, here: [[1]]. In his review of the Salon of 1781, discussing "Petits tableaux Ovales de Fleurs et de Fruits", he writes: "I y a de la vérité; mais la touche est molle et froide: rien de la finesse particulière de dessin et de pinceau que ce genre exige. La corbeille de raisins est égale de ton et sans effet." That is a remarkable change in to from his critique 10 years earlier, when he was very enthusiastic about her work. Mduvekot (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a critique/comparison of the artist's work which belongs in her biography, not in this stand alone article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the information can be retained in something like List of paintings by Anne Vallayer-Coster, similar to Jane023's User:Jane023/Paintings by Anne Vallayer-Coster which is generated by a bot, but could be rewritten. Would that work? Mduvekot (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'd only do something like this if there were sources about her works as a set and the material wouldn't appropriately fit within the existing article czar 08:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it within a list would also make it harder to adequately include the provenance and exhibition history, let alone describe the work as an individual piece. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a stub, but as the Met's page goes to show, there's lots of information that could be used to expand the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment we need a civil discussion of about wp:notability art, but that would require subject matter expertise. you might not want to start with the metropolitan museum collection, which has the ability to produce reams of reliable sources. funny, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability. Henryshirley (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need subject-specific guidelines for every topic. Our main policy is the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The question is what sources in this case cover this particular painting in enough depth to warrant a separate article from the article's own biography or an article on the artist's oeuvre. No one has investigated the contents of the Met's bibliography. Of course the Met's own publications cover the painting, but that doesn't imply that every painting at the Met is independently notable because we require proof that a work has been covered in sources independent from the subject (in this case, the holding museum). The other sources in the bibliography could just as well be mainly about the artist or period and not this painting in particular, based on the work's blurb on the Met's website. This should be basic deduction. czar 19:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep quite notable, has an image, and not too badly referenced. Its not because its a stub that it should be deleted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Anne Vallayer-Coster. I'm not finding any WP:RS outside of the Met's own catalog. There's a number of art dealers selling prints of this, and stuff like that, but nothing that I would consider an independent WP:RS which provides the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.