Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Bara Blaisot

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 due to improvement during the nomination period. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Bara Blaisot[edit]

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

Antoine Bara Blaisot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources are results of database queries to worldcat. WP:BEFORE yields nothing. Tried JSTOR, Omni, Grove, Benezit, etc. Found nothing except images of his prints. Vexations (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article needs some independent and reliable sources. It can't rely entirely on collections. Willing to change my !vote if reliable sources are found. Curiocurio (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep after the improvements made by Possibly. Good work! Curiocurio (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found this engraving in the Rijksmusum collection, which portends well for NARTIST. Brown University also lists him as the publisher of multiple engravings in their collection. --- Possibly ☎ 18:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I too could find nothing beyond catalogue entries. Seems to constructed from those with additional personal opinions ("particular talent", "reputed ... highest quality", "landmark acheivenent") and editorialising unsupported by sources, and giving undue weight to the contribution of a publisher over e.g. the artist(s).--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C76:604D:346A:60AF (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, impressive first edit! --- Possibly ☎ 05:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not my first edit. The lower /64 of my IP seems to change every day, if not more often. The upper /64 is stable and you can check my contributions from it.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C76:604D:346A:60AF (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note his alternate name, Antoine Barru Blaisot . I have found many museums that carry the lithographs released by his gallery under the Galeries Universels label. He is frequently listed as co-author. Just found the book Engravers of the 19th Century, which has a paragraph on him: "Antoine -Bara Blaisot, fils d'Antoine, né en 1794 . mort en 1876 , est l'éditeur et marchand d'estampes universellement connu. Rappelons seulement que c'est lui qui commença à publier, il y a plus de soixante ans, les premières litho- graphies d'un jeune homme qui s'appelait Che- valier et qui depuis fut Gavarni. C'est encore lui qui a édité la belle publication des Emaux de Petitoi. 11 a gravé des Modèles de broderies." He existed, he did things that ended up in museums... he's very clearly notable. --- Possibly ☎ 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curiocurio and Vexations:, I have rewritten the article and ditched all the Worldcat refs. Could you have a look at this and see if it passes WP:HEY? I added numerous collections. Let's bear in mind also that he was working around 200 years ago, so there is likely not going to be a lot of in-depth coverage available. --- Possibly ☎ 05:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I'm inclined to think that the fact that we have any information at all about people who lived a (very) long time ago supports their notability. So even if he was a "Marchand d'estampes", rather than an artist, that doesn't really matter, as long as we have sources that can sustain an article. I'd withdraw the nomination, but I can't because there is no unanimity. Vexations (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That quote should more properly be (minor tweaks but makes it easier to read):

Antoine-Bara Blaisot, fils d'Antoine, né en 1794. mort en 1876, est l'éditeur et marchand d'estampes universellement connu. Rappelons seulement que c'est lui qui commença à publier, il y a plus de soixante ans, les premières lithographies d'un jeune homme qui s'appelait Chevalier et qui depuis fut Gavarni. C'est encore lui qui a édité la belle publication des Emaux de Petitoi. Il a gravé des Modèles de broderies.

But that, a paragraph in a directory, is nowhere near enough for notability, and the other refs contribute nothing. His name of course comes up in catalogs of printed works, he was a publisher responsible for printing them and put his name on them. He was doing that for 60 years so despite inevitable losses there's still a few things around with his name on. But he was the publisher, not the artist. If works with his name on are on show in museums it's because of the art, so the artist.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C76:604D:346A:60AF (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name of course comes up in catalogs of printed works, IP, note that I did not add any sources for catalogs, and there are none in the article. The majority of sources I added were for six notable museums that include work he published, and they all mention him by name; some credit him as author. --- Possibly ☎ 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catalogues as in the catalogues museums keep of the works that are entrusted to them. It's something they've always done, as generally their collections are far larger than what they can display. But it's more important now than ever as with the Internet they can open these catalogues up to the world, not just researchers able to visit the museum's archives.
The point is that appearing in such catalogs does not make the works or the creators of those works notable. It simply means the works exist, and someone at some time gave them to the museum: perhaps they were used to pay tax, especially estate tax. As museums conventionally catalogue everything they have it does not indicate anything about notability, just as appearing in any other catalogue doesn't.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F5D0:AED0:DABC:AB5F (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is something that really ought to be addressed in a revised notability guide for the notability of artists. I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to gift something to a museum, but I have, and the process is anything but simple and involves a rigorous asessment of the work, how it would fit in the collection etc. It is actually quite expensive to store artwork in a museum indefinitely, so you can't just bring your old junk and get a tax receipt. I'd argue that inclusion in a museum collection means that a qualified expert (usually a curator with a PhD) provided critical commentary on the work. That's better than what we'd get from a newspaper. Vexations (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This probably varies a lot both by location and over time. But in the UK inheritance have been quite high, with the [desired] effect over time of reducing the wealth of rich families. And historically much of that wealth was tied up in property, not cash. Rather than be forced to sell assets they might instead gift them to the state, in lieu of tax. Probably it happens less now as wealth is more often tied up in financial assets, but it still goes on, so much so the Arts Council runs a scheme to manage it, Acceptance in Lieu. It's how many important individual works end up in museums and their archives, but also collections including of prints, such as the 8th item in the latest set of aquisitions. --2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F5D0:AED0:DABC:AB5F (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Provided new section with supporting references which begins to associate the works of rival Parisian print publishers of the times.  Expect much more information will become appended to it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc7n2T4v6 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can see no evidence that sources in any way meet WP:SIGCOV, a listing as creator in catalogues of works is not enough for notability. I can't see anything provided which discusses him specifically. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the page has been improved enough during this discussion that the nominator says above that: "I'd withdraw the nomination, but I can't because there is no unanimity." Seems a good initial nomination and then a good save. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2021 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_Bara_Blaisot&oldid=1054850861"