Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hieronymus Bosch – Visions of genius (exhibition)

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 merge to Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). Also consensus to turn off the automatic updating from Wikidata. Sandstein 13:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hieronymus Bosch – Visions of genius (exhibition)[edit]

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

An incorrectly titled, poorly constructed gallery without the necessary content to be regarded as an article. Content is generated on an external, unreliable site (wiki) and edits here will be overwritten by the contents added there, so we don't even have control over the contents of this article on enwiki. Article starts with an editor alert which doesn't belong in the mainspace (when reading). It has loads on info without encyclopedic value (the Wikidata Q number), but lacks any introduction or background (what is e.g. the difference between the "painting"(sic) section and the "misc" section?). An enwiki list in the Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition) would be a good idea; this however is not to way to go. Fram (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (info) Merge (article) This article is indeed too short and too uninformative to be a stand-alone article but the list can be merged into the exhibition article Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). The Q numbers can be added as inline references, but in any case the catalog numbers should be added and it is that which should determine the list order, not the brochure. The archived brochure is a nice-to-have, but it's the catalog that needs to be referenced here, in my opinion. I just checked and it appears that all the items have catalog numbers, though I guess you might have to get them out by hand. Since it is such a short list it seems quite manageable and I don't see why it needs to be an actively updated list. Jane (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (info) Merge (article) as above, now all are listed under paintings--Oursana (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the list can be perfectly curated here, references, now on commons and Wikidata, can as well be given here--Oursana (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Oursana, the bot reverted your changes. It is, essentially, edit-warring with you. I think it may be possible to make the changes you were trying to make by changing the programming in the top of the page. It still does not resolve the issue of the bot inserting at least three paintings into this list that were not part of the actual exhibit, and that is caused by inaccurate information on Wikidata, not on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a rationale for deletion here. You've listed a number of perfectly surmountable content problems. We have full control of the list through updating the relevant Wikidata entries (anybody can do this), adjusting the parameters in the template that tells the bot what to do with them, and can always disable bot-updating (and keep the list) if it becomes problematic. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with merge of content to Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). The content is generated by Wikidata and cannot be curated on this project. There are no reference sources to confirm that all of these paintings were part of the specific exhibition; there were only 17 paintings and 19 drawings,{see this reliable source) which means that this list has more paintings in it than were actually in the exhibition. I am fine with having the list of paintings/drawings added to the main article, but not driven by Wikidata which is even less reliable as a source than Wikipedia. There should be an exhibit catalogue that lists all of the paintings, so it is possible to create a reliably sourced, Wikipedia-curated list. Risker (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2016 (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.