Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 sources provided over the course of the AfD have largely not been rebutted Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso

[edit]

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

100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso (edit | 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my definition. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." Please read what I linked to. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I picked List of works in the Museum of Modern Art at random from the many museum lists on Wikipedia. Works at the Museum of Modern Art have been discussed in the context of the group with works such as "A Landmark Acquisition for MoMA's Architecture and Design Department". In this case, only the curator or individual works have been discussed in reliable sources. There has been no such coverage about the book or list "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting I just noticed this 1994 edition example here. I only noticed because the cover illustration is different. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Change vote to Keep per Cunard. Also who turned my name into a red link lol? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit did. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that any top museum willing to risk snide comments in the art world by distilling their huge list of items on show to a number approaching something browsable on a mobile phone (100 is still a bit long) deserve our support. It was only in the 1980s that paperback guidebooks became more available, and generally were only made by top-ticket museums. Goodness knows there is less and less funding available to produce such guidebooks, and it may be a dying genre, but I do think it would be worthwhile to set up some guidelines for covering museum guidebooks and exhibition catalogues on Wikipedia, if only to avoid comparing them to generic non-fiction. Jane (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: There are already two other list articles for works in the National Gallery: Collection of the National Gallery, London and Catalogue of paintings in the National Gallery, London. There is no need for more than one in an encyclopaedia; probably the first should be deleted and the second should have illustrations added to it. That second page should perhaps also be renamed to List of works in the National Gallery, as it includes the single significant work in the collection which isn't a painting, Leonardo's Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Lubbock, Tom (2001-08-24). "Don't take this book as the last word on art. It can be only an introduction". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "On the other hand, as the book is intended for beginners, some guidelines seem useful. For example, to fill it up with the most famous pictures would be pointless. People are going to bump into ... anyway, in the windows of poster shops. A little adventurousness, even eccentricity, is wise. It's good, for example, that Georges de la Tour is represented not by his famous, dreamy, candle-lit visions, but by one of his sharp-edged card-cheating scenes. What's more, the choices should inspire further exploration. What's depressing about having Caravaggio represented by his early, static Lute Player is not only that it's far from his best, but that this choice conceals from the novice the terrific excitement of Caravaggio's art. It does not truly introduce. Overall, this selection is as good as any. But, actually, for a really engaging introduction, you don't want a book of the 100 greatest paintings."

    2. Cole, R. (March 1984). "100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso (Book Review)". Museums Journal. Vol. 83. pp. 244–245. EBSCOhost 513730664. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Google Books.

      The review notes: "The publication of this volume by the National Gallery marks a new venture in that it is sponsored by Messrs Coutts & Co , bankers to the Gallery since 1864. Let us hope that this volume will be succeeded by others and that the example given by this kind of sponsorship is followed elsewhere. One hundred paintings from the National Gallery (approximately five percent of the total collection) have been selected by Dillian Gordon as examples of the richness and range of this famous collection. The paintings are reproduced at full-page size and in an excellent full-colour rendering. The Gallery's most famous paintings are here: Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin and Št Anne, Bellini's Doge and Botticelli's Venus and Mars, Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne and the Rembrandt Self-Portrait, van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage and Vermeer's Woman at a Virginal, Velasquez' Rokeby Venus and Goya's Dona Isabel de Porcel. Coming closer to home, we find Constable's Hay Wain, Turner's Fighting Temeraire and the great French paintings such as Renoir's Les Parapluies, Seurat's Bathers at Asnieres and Van Gogh's famous Sunflowers. There are also less well-known works: Pisanello's darkly gleaming Vision of St Eustach, a Canaletto, which takes us a few yards away from the vistas of the Grand Canal to a Stonemason's Yard, a plump and motherly Madame de Pompadour by Drouais, The Grote Kerk, Haarlem with its glowing white interior by Saenredam, a nice Steen of ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thanks for finding this. However, it seems to be a fairly short review since the page range given is just one page. Is that what you see? (I don't have access to it.) Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the first reference is about this book? It seems strange for a 2001 article to review a 1981 publication. SL93 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Caravaggio's Lute Player is not in this book, and Georges de la Tour isn't featured at all. SL93 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:
  2. Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

    The review notes: "Duccio to Picasso: 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery, London (4.95 until December 31, then £5.95). The enviable task of browsing through the NG's 2,000 treasures to produce a book of a mere hundred fell to assistant keeper Dillian Gordon. Of course, she's ridiculously wrong about some things. Her choice of four Titians against only one each of Cezanne and Renoir is probably explained by her three-year study period in Italy, dangerous for anyone at any impressionable age. ... But one shouldn't grumble. To let the book fall open at, say, Tiepolo's Venus And Time, ... or Corregio's School of Love is to let the spirit breathe deep. At the price (Coutts Bank have helped keep it down), the book is a treasure in itself." The caption notes: "... Her comments on each picture in 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery are unfailingly helpful."

Cunard (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard Thank you. I haven't been able to use Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library for a while now now because of the current errors per this. Are you using a paid subscription? Not being able to access it, especially for creating articles, has been upsetting. SL93 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, I've updated the https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ link to a clipping. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this article is kept, and is about the book rather than the list itself, it should probably be renamed to match the book title. From the links above, either Duccio to Picasso or 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cover of the 1981 edition and MOS:TITLEPUNCT suggest that the article title would be The National Gallery, London: 100 Great Paintings – Duccio to Picasso, but the cover of the 1994 edition suggests it's 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. I don't know if the title pages had something different from the covers; if they did that could explain the titles in the 1981 reviews of the book. Ham II (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as I think a 1981 book was probably covered in offline sourcing that we haven't yet found. At worst, merge to Dillian Gordon where it makes sense to cover the book with the sourcing that has been identified. I'm a little confused about the redirect not being of value but may have misunderstood what was meant. Star Mississippi 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've struck my previous "delete" comment above. The Independent and Museums Journal sources found by Cunard look promising and suggest there are others that are difficult to find based on being from the early 1980s. I may have found another, but it is behind a pay wall. The article needs to be rewritten to be about the book, including its reception, rather than just duplicating the contents of the book. Elspea756 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Ham II (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - really as that very rare animal on WP: a fully sourced list that someone might actually want to look at. A rename might be in order, but I can't see we should delete that given the vast number of unsourced lists of all sorts on WP. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I think it is not notable enough to merit its own page, however I noticed the Collection highlights section of National Gallery article is just what appears to be an arbitrary list of works. Would be be better to use Dillian Gordon's list instead? I believe it is notable enough for that. Myotus (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.

    We shouldn't give undue prominence to one souvenir guide from 1981, as if that's the only publication that's ever given a condensed list of highlights of the collection. If we really wanted to base National Gallery § Collection highlights on some sort of statistical analysis, there would be lots of books in a similar vein to Dillian Gordon's to take into account, none of them suitable topics for encyclopaedia articles. As I've said, Wikidata is the place to gather that sort of data, and that has already been done for this book at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso. Because the Commons gallery c:National Gallery, London is also a compilation of highlights, there might be a case for adding all the (out of copyright) works in Gordon's selection to that, and noting in the captions when a painting is in her top 100. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have any Cassatts that I can see - rather late, & not many oils. They would be in the Tate. They have two VlBs, one of top quality but a secondary version (oddly, these are not mentioned in our much longer Collection of the National Gallery, London list). Non-European (indeed Byzantine) art is outside the NG's scope. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I just added Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun's Self Portrait in a Straw Hat to the "Collection highlights" section in the Nation Gallery article, doubling the number of women of in the listed 58 artists in the section. Myotus (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/100_great_paintings_from_Duccio_to_Picasso&oldid=1255544159"