Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England

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. Consensus is also to move to Thomas More in Prison, Visited by His Wife and Daughter. It may be shortened, or otherwise modified, after discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability for the painting found in a search, fails WP:GNG. Article deprodded without the issue being addressed, claim of notability not substantiated despite being requested. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I can't find any coverage other than a few photos of the artwork. I oppose a redirect to Claudius Jacquand or Thomas More here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Claudius Jacquand, per policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone know that this is a painting and not about Thomas More? A redirect to the artist would merely cause confusion, especially when someone is looking for Thomas more which is the more likely reason to search for the name. It had on average less than one view per day after its creation, compared to Thomas More which is in the thousands, and it is possible that some of the few views it had might be people clicking by mistake looking for Thomas More. Hzh (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a reasonable one but the solution is found by changing the title, not by deletion. I suppose "Painting of Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England" would do but I don't know if there is a standard way of doing things. I found Portrait of the Duke of Wellington when I was pondering this. Deletion is the last thing we do, not the first. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (but don't delete) to Claudius Jacquand. Change the title to show it is a painting, not the person. Thincat (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to "Painting of Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England" doesn't help, people will just confuse it with the famous one Portrait of Sir Thomas More (Holbein). This one so little known that hardly anyone will be actively looking for it. Hzh (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Painting of Thomas More (Jacquand) redirecting to Claudius Jacquand and include the redirect in Thomas More (disambiguation). Thincat (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP as suggested. The Lyons fine arts museum is a great collection. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The actual title of the painting is Thomas More en prison, per the museum where it is held. Of course, the same page calls it or a similar painting Thomas Morus, grand chancelier d’Angleterre (1828). Which brings up the question of why we would be using translated titles of the original work as article titles. Multiple 19C sources also use the Thoman Morus spelling, and mention prison. Perhaps this information will help someone to sort it all out. All in all, this is not a notable painting by sourcing, and no regular reader will ever be looking for it. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we certainly should be using translated titles of the original work as article titles - as per WP:VAMOS. Otherwise we'd get things like Иван Грозный и сын его Иван 16 ноября 1581 года! Never mind Japanese stuff. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good explanation, thank you. I don't agree with the policy but will follow it.96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, References have been added, an editor has added References. Yay. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References do not necessarily indicate notability. Notability requires sources that provide significant coverage per WP:GNG, and the sources given appear to give only passing mentions, and do not demonstrate notability. Hzh (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the Mona Lisa or Guernica, and the artist is not Da Vinci or Picasso, but it is still a substantial work by a notable artist, held by a fairly significant public collection. Sources in English are thin, but then this is a painting by a (notable but) second rank French artist held for nearly 200 years in a (significant but) provincial French museum, so what do you expect. There is some background and a thorough description over four pages here (in French): [1]; and it is one of four paintings by Jacquand specifically mentioned in his entry in Larousse,[2] so clearly one of the more important works in his oeuvre. 213.205.240.163 (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per the 1832 source to "Thomas More in Prison, Visited by his Wife and Daughter" (translated), a much better title, and avoiding confusion. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I have struck my !vote above). The references now are sufficient to retain this as a basis for developing the article. Jonbod's suggestion above for a page title is better than my suggestions. Thincat (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the latter source in article seems to provide a good amount of coverage. One that I can't access also indicates it might provide decent coverage. I don't feel qualified to judge on better names, so leave that to those better suited. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is needed about the recently added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But perhaps retitle the article to reflect how it is about a painting of Thomas More.TH1980 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 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.