Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private collection

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. Can be renamed as appropriate, of course. W.marsh 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private collection[edit]

This article was tagged for deletion as a dicdef on 9 Sept 2006, at that time, quite correctly. It wa, though, not deleted despite passing its 5-day grace period and was later tagged as undergoing serious editing. What we have now is, essentially, the original article with the addition of a not entirely relevant section on Famous art collections> This raises the sorts of issues we see frequently with List of..... type articles - i.e. who says what is famous, why these and not others (all?)? etc. The only other addition of note is the statement that "Originally nobility were the only ones who collected art, but later other wealthy industrialists adopted the habit" which is contentious to say the least. In essence, remove the bits I've referred to and we still have a dicdef Emeraude 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What about transferring some of the important information from this article to others, such as Princely Family of Liechtenstein? The info regarding them seems notable. The dicdef portion could simply be moved to Private Collection (or that info moved to this article with only the dicdef kept). - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Totally inadequate article, but private art collecting is notable--there may be a better title, such as art collector--we do not seem to have a general article on this subject.DGG 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as stub. I have restructured the text slightly, but information could usefully be added on other private collections. However, the normal use of the term is as a citation of a work reproduced in a book etc. leaving the provenance anonymous. Peterkingiron 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:06, 5 June 2007 (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.