Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp fire

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. Multiple changes to Keep per wp:HEY work done. The article has also tailored itself to be a bit clearer about its primary purpose (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp fire

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Wooded landscape with gipsies round a camp fire (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 page is not clear on the subject: the lost painting, the etching, the published print or the forgery. None of the sources "provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". Source #1 (British Museum) is more like a primary source - it basically just verifies "yup, this exists" - no suggestion of notability there. Sources #2, #4, #5 are about the BBC programme - no notability of the painting there (and certainly none of the etching or print). Source #3 (Tate) is again more a library reference than a secondary source (and again no verification of the claim that the print is notable, and again - why would the painting be notable even if the print was?). Notability template has been up for two weeks - it's time to discuss this properly. CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Week keep or Merge to Thomas Gainsborough (Ideally we should have a List of works by Thomas Gainsborough one day). Not seeing any discussion of this work beyond a sentence that it existed and another that it was recently forged. While many artworks are independently notable, such sub-stubs should not be treated any different that yellow-page like company entries or stats-only sport bios. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC) PS. Changed to week keep or merge per Eastmain's source which is indeed longer than 1-2 sentences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The description at https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gainsborough-landscape-with-gipsies-n05845 seems reasonably in-depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  What conclusions do you draw from this, if any? It seems we must first agree on what subject should the article focus on? The print is the only item Tate characterises as "famous". And even if we do agree to focus the article on the print I would like to see a more "regular" source confirming that notability (if nothing else making our article not rely on a single source) - if it really is famous, that should not be hard to confirm (maybe in scholarly works on Gainsborough?) CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, well sourced (British Museum, Tate, Fake or Fortune? production), an interesting example of Gainsborough's work. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am not questioning the existence of the article subject; I am questioning its notability (at least given the five sources present). And I am pointing out the article can't decide whether it is about the lost painting, the etching, the published print or the forgery. In that light, could I ask you to revisit your statement? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's about all of the topics related to the painting. The museum sources seem to hold up the nobility, and the television show episode (which leads off the season) affirms its notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't consider having a museum page or inclusion on Fake or Fortune to establish notability. But let's await further discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Really, why not? WP:PUBLISHED "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Thomas Gainsborough or Keep - I don't think much of the nom - the subject is clearly Gainsborough's composition, in whatever form, which is fine. It would help if the print were uploaded to Commons. The BM info, taken from a book, would itself be enough to establish notability, so the nom is way out there. There certainly will be sufficient coverage in sources not online, and there is no requirement that coverage be online. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There absolutely is no requirement for sources to be online and I have not suggested that there is. If you can provide good offline sources to establish notability then this AfD has succeeded where the Notability template failed. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability for works of art is usually accepted as one good source. Here there are three, kind of a stretch to even nominate it. question:Was it fake or fortune? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The article has been considerably expanded (3 Sept) & I've changed to firm keep above. Time to withdraw the nom really. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 4 September 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.