Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yerusalem Wedding

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 delete. Punting any questions about the use of any image to the file talk page and WP:FFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yerusalem Wedding

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

No evidence that this is a notable work could be found, there seem to be no reliable indepth sources about this work. Prod was removed because the artist is notable, but notability is not inherited and the article had no sources at the time of prodding (or now) and the prod remover (admin and arbcom member!) didn't provide any either. So this article languished for another year and a half and now we need to have an AfD... Fram (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first question I have is on the name of the painting. It's unlikely to be in English ("Jerusalem" wedding), so it should probably be "Yerushalayim wedding". Yoninah (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. It depends on what the painting is commonly referred to as in reliable sources, per WP:ENGLISH. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my before I wasn't able to find much beyond [1] (which is also here - [2], I did add the artmarketmag source to the article (though I'm not 100% sure regarding the RSness)), lithograph sales (signed copies of this particular work are actively resold), and Wikipedia clones - searching for "Itshak Holtz"+wedding (leaving out variant Jerusalem spellings) - also added 2010 for good measure. In Hebrew wasn't able to find anything.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything in the article or in a Google search that would demonstrate independent notability for the work itself. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs not found in a search; notability not inherited.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable painting. Note that I have taken the image used her and added it to the artist's page, which had no images of his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: The image of the painting is licensed as non-free content, and non-free use is not automatic. So, if you want to use it in the artist's article you will need to provide a non-free use rationale which clearly shows how the way the file is being used satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria. For reference, moving the image to the artist's article was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 5#Yerusalem Wedding, but it's not clear whether said use would satisfy WP:NFCC#8. It was suggested by StevenJ81 that a freely licensed (if one exists) image be used instead or possibly another non-free painting if one can be found which can be better used to support sourced critical commentary about either the painting itself or how it represents Holtz's particular style. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It was a simpleminded move on my part of the only thing on this page that looked like it was useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. I tried to find something about this particular painting and how it might illustrate Holtz's style, but had no luck. Perhaps you or someone can found sources which discuss it and can be used to add content which will better incorporate the image into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not know enough about art notability to comment on the article itself. Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that this article is deleted, let me reiterate what I said elsewhere about the image file:
- The ideal choice for an image on the author page would be an image file available freely. Absent that ...
- Next best is a non-free file legitimately used here in a different article.
- After that, next best is a non-free file not used here elsewhere, but where a RS describes how the work exemplifies the artist's style.
- Only when all of the above is exhausted would it be acceptable to leave a non-free file here "just" for the purpose of illustrating the artist's style. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2017 (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.