Talk:Tureen with cover (Metropolitan Museum of Art)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Title and notability
[edit]What kind of title is "tureen with cover"? The Met has about 60 in its collection. Does this one need disambiguating? Perhaps this is a rare instance where we need the accession number?
More importantly, is this particular tureen with cover any more notable than the five dozen others held by the Met? Are we to expect separate articles on all of them? Where are the multiple independent reliable sources, outside the Met's website? I'm tempted to test this at AFD, but I'm not sure an IP would be allowed to do that. 213.205.198.216 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the title is pretty useless, but there's no alternative I can think of that's much better; the accession number won't help, imo. Personally I support the inclusion of a few articles on typical works from the decorative arts, which is an area we cover very poorly indeed. I expect there are in fact "multiple independent reliable sources", but perhaps the usual very cursory AFD web-search will not find them, as they will be in specialist books. I and others have complained elsewhere about the recent rash of Met stubs, but they are nearly all paintings, and mostly much shorter than this. I would much rather have this than many of the minor paintings that get articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)