Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose As per section Commons:Valued image scope#Works of art there is no Wikipedia article [in any language] about this artist. The scope is therefore fails the guidelines. Martinvl (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support, my view is that a piece of art this old and this charming qualifies without doubt for a scope of its own, regardless of the artist and regardless of whether there is currently an associated Wikipedia article. DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DeFacto --Llez (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DeFacto. I'd prefer a less glary picture, but look at the painting, Martinvl. It's really well-composed and interesting. There are oversights on Wikipedia, and the purpose of VIs is not simply to illustrate existing Wikipedia articles, but includes making photos available for future Wikipedia articles (or blog posts, sites about art, etc.) that should be written but have yet to be started. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to make another picture of this artwork. The angle and the light in the church were not the ideal conditions. JeanBono (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Ikan Kekek: Please read Commons:Valued image scope. There is only one place in that article where a prior article in Wikipeida is required and that is in the case of Works of Art. Even then it does not require that the work itself be referenced, but that the artist be referenced. If you feel that the absence of an artcile about this artist is an oversight, then please write a properly cross-referenced the artcile yourself. If you can't find the relevant cross-references, then the artist is not notable. Martinvl (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are seemingly ignoring the phrase "for instance", which stands between the examples being absolute or illustrative. I needn't post the quote because you posted that section above. "For instance" is the antithesis of "only". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I did a Google search on "François Lombard painter", "François Lombard 1606" and "François Lombard artist". This search did not turn up any references to this artist. Will you please show me some references that are independent of this VI submission that show this image or artist to be notable. If no such references can be found, then it is unlikely that a future article will be written about this artist, thereby negating your original statements. Martinvl (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Martin, I appreciate your sincerity and zeal in making sure that VI doesn't become so broad a category as to lose meaning. I agree that that's important. But please be a little flexible. The guidelines on art are indeed set up to prevent every single artwork from every single artist having a viable claim to VI status, and I think it's fair to say that we are cautioned about that in both respects (the artist and the importance of the works themselves), but the "for instance"s are advisory. As with other things, it's a judgment call whether an artwork deserves VI for the scope or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Martinvl: don't you think this piece of art speaks for itself? Why do you think its artist needs to appear in a Wikipedia article or even in a Google search? Would you expect the same for every other exquisite, culturally and artistically valuable piece such as, say, cave paintings or art from ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome? DeFacto (talk). 10:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DeFacto: In an encyclopeadia such as Wikipedia (including its support projects such as wikimedia Commons) I would expect exquisite, culturally and artistically valuable piece of artwork to be described and classified in the manner approppriate for artwork of the era in question. In the case of seventeenth century art this includes the artist and the style (Baroque etc). Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Martinvl: you are mistakenly assuming that Wikipedia is complete. This image might well inspire an editor to create an article about the painting or the author, but without it, Commons would be a poorer place and Wikipedia might never cover it. DeFacto (talk). 19:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin, you're still making this argument even after JeanBono was prompted to start a stub because of this discussion? Don't you need to update your argument now? And in that case, what's your new argument? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Useful. The photography of church paintings in France sometimes involves the techniques of speleological photography. I salute your work and your good will. You have friends like you see. I do not know if we owe it to Bonaventure but the support that you get gives pleasure to see: it is a miracle! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
