1130:
sufficiently delved into they are assumed to be a person not unlike those who lived in their time and place. That which is known about
Voordecker does not place him far outside of the group of people he circulated among. On the other hand, the fact that this one painting has survived a span of time from 1826 to 2017 and now hangs in the Rijksmuseum is a fact that sets it apart from most other paintings. The effort to prove notability for this painting is difficult because it is over 100 years old and its notoriety (apparently) never experienced an upsurge. He (the artist) nor it (the painting) were never "discovered" in the long trajectory from 1826 to 2017. This is more a fluke than anything meaningful. The fact that it has remained undiscovered says little about the painting (or the artist). The fact that it has remained undiscovered merely shows that our (collective) preoccupations have been elsewhere. We should not be passing commentary on the history of art. When we vastly cover Kazimir Malevich and Marcel Duchamp we are following the trail of human interest. But they are not all that has been eventful over the history of art. The great museums of the world know this and Knowledge (XXG) should be taking its cue from them. Yes, our rule of thumb and guiding principle is that we must see significant coverage in reliable sources before we grant notability to a subject for a freestanding article. But we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we stubbornly adhere to those rules when a painting is found in a great museum of art. We are merely bowing to the pressure of taste and human interest which has manifested itself in much spilled ink over a long period of time but most importantly in recent decades. We should have the common sense to understand that there are countertrends at all times. We have no criteria for notability that are tailored to address the particulars of works of art. If we did those guidelines would surely make allowances for indications of importance such as being in the collection of an important museum of art. This painting is clearly notable to a sufficient degree to have its own article on Knowledge (XXG). It was not made during the digital age and it has not enjoyed an upswing in popularity. Hence its existence has been beneath the radar of sources that are easily accessible to us sitting at our computers. But those shortcomings should not mean that it is inappropriate for an article.
1883:
could be "conflict of interest" reasons and that I oppose. Promotion of artworks is counterproductive for most readers except those that stand to gain. But I find greater importance in the artwork than in the artist. In fact I find the two unrelated. An article on a work of art is a greater undertaking, in my opinion, than an article on an artist. Artists are people and we know what people are. But artworks defy full explication. This despite the fact that they are finite entities. They are actually very limited. Most works of art are silent and most works of art don't move. And yet they are discussed. People hailing from various walks of life weigh in with opinions and observations on something as simple as a sculpture or a painting. Many paintings, for instance, have a ton of commentary written about them. The inclusion of a selection of that commentary in an article on a work of art makes for a very worthwhile article, in my opinion. And I should add that I think images are super important. In my opinion ideally
Knowledge (XXG) would benefit from giving editors a little slack on creating articles on individual works of art. To that end we should consider the inclusion in respectable collections, as well as the age of the object, to be criteria contributing to the notability of works of art.
1805:. As concerns works of art it is connoisseurship that is of ultimate importance. Inclusion in great collections of art by definition confers importance on works of art. Are connoisseurs and museums and important private collections infallible? No, but such inclusion is a good enough indicator for our purposes to consider the work notable. Age should be another factor. Preserving a work of art is not trivial. We have a good indication that a work of art is notable if it has been kept in good condition for one hundred years. There is expense involved. This is not a consumer item that is disposable and replaceable. Therefore old paintings in prestigious collections should by default be considered notable and the onus should be on an editor to present an argument that such an art object is
1867:
There are still plenty of very well-known works without articles at all, so naturally people normally concentrate on these. There is a huge amount of art history literature, much of it easy to find on the internet, if you know how to search. But some areas are rather ignored by international art history, and 19th-century genre painting is one of them; most or all extended coverage will be in the local languages only. Central and
Eastern European art has similar problems at earlier dates.
1596:, that it would depend on your definition of "several". Some sources do claim "several" is three or more (or even two or more), but my personal rule of thumb is several is more than a few which is more than a couple, which would necessitate at least greater than three. If consensus is that "several" includes three, then I agree with you, but I would also say that we should replace an ambiguous word such as "several" with "at least 3".
1301:. I have emailed the Rijksmuseum concerning any mentions in commentary over the years that they might know of concerning "The Home of a Hunter" by Henri Voordecker. My prediction is that they will mention more than one instance in which this painting is discussed by an art historian or someone else. But perhaps they will not even respond to my email. Time will tell.
1010:
details are not available. Here we have a situation where there doesn't seem to be enough justification for two separate articles, so cover the painting in the artist's article or vice versa. I somewhat prefer to have the article title to be explicitly about the artist, thereby logically allowing for coverage of other paintings by them which might emerge. --
1176:, and led to unproductive diversion. I do not much like the painting myself but if it was discussed extensively in reliable art history books, I would recommend keeping the article. If the painter is notable, then mention the non-notable painting in his biography, with an image to illustrate his style.
1866:
Unfortunately we have a large number of articles "with just the name of the artwork and the great museum of the world housing it" - and a picture, measurements etc. These were created en masse years ago, most by the same couple of people. But all these are highly notable, often really famous, works.
1828:
I doubt that would fly. Even the best museum collections have accreted some very odd or minor stuff. Would you restrict this to paintings? It certainly wouldn't work for other types of artwork. The main reason we don't need such a policy is that in fact very few people create articles on non-notable
1707:
Thank you for your inquiry. I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you looking for quotes from (prominent) art historians ‘proving’ this work is an important piece? Anyhow I’ve updated the list of literature references dating back to 1828. Hopefully this will be of a help to you. Please find
1047:
My point is that for most visual artists the fact that their work outlives them (in many cases by centuries) doesn't make them less notable. This painting would simply not exist without
Voordecker having painted it. In my own mind this makes Voordecker more important than this one work. Sorry if this
1882:
I tend not to think any article on a work of art is unfortunate. I don't think editors want to create articles for the sake of creating articles. It may be hard to find reliable sources but I don't think articles with individual works of art as the subject are created by editors for no reason. There
1691:
I feel that the painting is a great treasure and surely a worthy subject for an article on the
English Knowledge (XXG) but others argue that there is scant information pertaining to commentary that might have transpired over the painting's lifetime for instance by writers on art history but actually
1430:
enough to be sufficiently covered in independent, reliable secondary sources to even warrant a mention on the
Rijksmuseum page, let alone have their own article. I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art, but I am fairly certain that this particular one
1261:
You keep saying "obvious". If it were "obvious" then we would all be agreeing to it! Sorry, but simple ownership of a work of art by a major museum, or for that matter even exhibition, has never been held here to be sufficient. There needs to be notable discussion of it, and there isn't. There seems
1009:
For what it's worth, it is fine for there to exist fairly extensive discussion about individual works by an artist, in an article about the artist. This happens often for long-dead architects, where the list of their architectural works might be almost the entire content in cases where biographical
1129:
I said nothing about 99% of seven billion people not contributing to society as a whole. What we have is the painting, not the artist. The artist is not displayed in a museum. If we have information on him, it should be appended to the article on the painting. Unless the life of the artist has been
988:
What is your point? In the absence of notability requirements for works of art we are required to fall back on our own reasoning in reaching these decisions. It is obvious to me that an obscure life, long gone, is not the primary focus here, but rather an object that is displayed in an institution
297:
is that the painting is not notable. Catalogue entries leave all mustard uncut. And the howlingly dull comment is certainly only my opinion, but would I think be4 substantiated by the tack of any substantial body of critical exegisis of the work. There should be a biog of this artist, altho I note
1843:
I think consensus should have veto power of the creation of articles. I don't think articles should be created if there are no sources saying anything about an art object. What would be the point of that? We would have an empty article with just the name of the artwork and the great museum of the
1171:
painting, because there is no significant coverage of the painting in reliable sources. I really want to object to the notion that every single painting that hangs in a major museum is notable. I see no precedent and no basis in policies or guidelines for that claim. Comments such as "certainly
959:
But you don't have to have a section on the painting in the
Voordecker article because you can simply talk about the artist in an article on the painting. For all intents and purposes the artist is long gone but the painting lives on. From our perspective the painting is more important than the
691:
to
Voordecker article. And trim. There are a few books that cite the painting, but it's not widely covered in a critical sense. Notability of the work is not established by sources. Not every work an artist makes is notable. For most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is
1117:
There are currently seven billion people living on Earth - are you saying that since 99% of those have nothing written about them, they're also not notable or contributing to society as a whole? Alive or dead, the artist created the painting, so the painting should be in the discussion of the
532:
The artist is not more notable. The artist is barely notable, as has been pointed out by someone else on this page. But the painting, painted over one hundred years ago, hangs at this time in the
Rijksmuseum. The notability of the painting easily exceeds the notability of the artist.
1062:
Knowledge (XXG) doesn't even have guidelines for the notability of works of art. Notability is roughly translatable, in my opinion, into "importance". Yes, the artist painted the painting. But what is the importance of a life after it is over? There aren't even living people who
1330:, which seems to have been his most significant work. There seems to be a number of different versions of the title in Dutch used over the years, not to mention the Henry/Henri issue - I found more hits for "Henry" than "Henri". The Dutch WP has a decent bio (under "Henry").
1898:
They are unfortunate when they take the top of google searches, displacing more useful sources for the reader, and giving WP articles a bad reputation. Fortunately few ones like this are created these days. But this is off-topic here, and this page is already much too long.
1743:
Beoordeelend overzigt der voornaamste, op de
Amsterdamsche tentoonstelling van 1828, toegelaten kunstwerken, van nog in leven zijnde Nederlandsche meesters, Amsterdam: 1828, p. 28. "Van dit stuk zijn vele partijen fraai geschilderd, maar aan het geheel ontbreekt harmonie en
1246:
in that we certainly should deduce their notability from factors such as the collection in which they reside. At least to some degree we should be relying on the connoisseurship that guides important collections such as the Rijksmuseum which owns this painting.
1344:
I think the vegetation is specifically identifiable. I think there are grape vines overhead and I think it is a geranium in the pot. The landing leading into the house seems especially solid and weighty as each stone is seemingly accurately rendered.
207:
This is a curiosity. Imo a howlingly dull painting, but not either dull or bad enough to confer notability. What should be done is to redirect this to the perp's biography; however this does not exist other than as a redirect to this thing.
223:
Paintings don't have "perps" they have painters. Your personal opinion on what is "howlingly dull" is of no consequence here. This nomination is a curiosity. Either there are enough sources to support it's notability or there aren't?
1238:. Sticking to the letter of policy might result in an appending of an obviously important work of art to the name of an artist that is only slightly notable. As far as I can tell policy makes no allowance for works of art aside from
904:
669:
painting. I don't know why someone moved the artist's article to the painting, but so far I've only found discussion of him, and not of it. He's (barely) notable, it is not. Howling boredom, or lack thereof, is beside the point.
1753:
The above references may not be available for online inspection but I think we here at English Knowledge (XXG) have a suggestion that the painting has been the subject of commentary in sources that we would consider "reliable".
1844:
world housing it. Therefore I think I agree with what you are saying that we should not create articles with no verifiable information on the artwork based solely on the argument that it is in a great museum. But once we have
1496:, even a lot of them, don't establish notability, nor do the number of search engine hits you found. I read the (translated) bio you listed as well; there is exactly one reference on that page, which is unfortunately
1417:
The work does hang in one of the great museums of the world, this is true; but as someone who has spent some time at that museum, I would hardly that expect every one of the thousands of works I saw there, let alone
176:
1737:
Lijst der kunstwerken van nog in leven zijnde Nederlandsche meesters, welke zijn toegelaten tot de tentoonstelling voor den jare 1828, Amsterdam, 1828. 'Een buitenhuis, waarvoor zich lieden met kippen en duiven
1318:, Volume 2, by Friedrich Markus Huebner seems to cover him, as one would expect. Coverage is naturally more likely to be in Dutch/Flemish, French or German than English, though Voordecker has a painting in the
1697:
My argument is that of course the painting would have been substantially mentioned over its long lifetime. Do you have any information on this that you could share with me that I could then pass along to
396:
Certainly notable. The painting & its period & style are not very appealling to modern taste, which is why it is especially useful to have a rare decent article on a representative.
129:
1262:
to be some consensus that the painter is notable, and it would help a great deal if people would talk recasting this back as his biography, but about the painting we have no discussion.
514:
The creation of an article (an artist) that is likely to be more general and notable than a single work (one of his paintings)? It seems he painted more than one in his lifetime?
1067:
this person. But the painting is experienced every day. It has impact at the present time and in perpetuity, until its "life" is over, perhaps in a conflagration or nuclear war.
621:
354:
1403:
that this is not a notable painting; I actually happen to like it, but that fact is just as irrelevant as the fact that many of you don't. Half of the already-short article is
1732:
Beschrijving der schilderijen in 's Rijks Verzameling van kunstwerken van moderne meesters in het Paviljoen Welgelegen te Haarlem, 's Gravenhage 1880. 'Jagers-huishouding'.
1500:. The literature section entries, all 17 of them, are dictionary entries or catalog listings. I personally do not see anything that would lead me to believe that he passes
1366:: The Rijksmuseum has kindly sent me seven instances of references in literature to this painting dating back to 1828. Give me some time to post a more thorough response.
170:
1801:
important. The default position should be that a work of art included in any important collection implies notability for our purposes. This is an important exception to
1681:
I am wondering what other published commentary might exist on the painting in your collection by Henri Voordecker titled The Home of a Hunter, object number SK-A-1157.
1172:
notable" or "obviously notable" without further explanation should be discounted by the closing administrator. The nominator's critical assessment of the painting is
1466:
are in English and free on the web, but there are easily enough that are to demonstrate notability, and several are mentioned above. Plenty of period artists that
339:
416:
This particular painting is not of itself notable: the only reference to it I can find that doesn't derive from us is a book listing every painting in the
1462:
is not notable is so clearly wrong that it greatly detracts from your opinion about the painting! Probably none of the long list of sources given at the
424:, under which name I found essentially nothing; however, searching by "Henri" instead of "Henry" produces enough to justify the stubby bio we have here.
1852:
information, plus the fact that it is in a great collection, and perhaps that it is quite old too—should rule out the argument that it is not notable.
1686:
I am inquiring because a discussion presently underway on the English Knowledge (XXG) concerns the availability of further commentary on the painting.
944:
by moving to Voordecker, and having the painting as its own section within, until the painting itself can be fully fleshed out via WP:GNG / WP:RS. -
1722:
All the paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam: a completely illustrated catalogue: first supplement: 1976-91, Amsterdam/ The Hague 1992, p. 91.
136:
1031:
I don't think there should be two articles. And from what I gather from this discussion this is the only known surviving painting by this artist.
771:
The point was that, given the totality of an artist's creative output, a very small percentage of their work is tytpically notable on its own.
995:
It is ridiculous that such a painting is thought not to meet our standards. The painting is notable. I don't know why this is up for deletion.
643:
is what others would identify as domestic tranquility—damn those happy people—and the animals too—what right do the animals have to be happy?
1553:
908:
827:
784:
693:
273:
1413:, one of the truly notable pieces at the Rijksmuseum); in my opinion this is a pretty strong indication of the lack of depth of coverage.
102:
97:
17:
106:
1570:
remains so. And I can't fathom any basis for concluding that Knowledge (XXG)'s encyclopedic coverage of 19th century art would be
1544:
and then move and refocus this to be a biographical article about the artist with appropriate discussions of his artworks. Per the
272:
This would have been a successful deletion if it had dealt strictly with notability criteria and not subjective aesthetic response.
907:
where we learn that he had available a painting of chimneysweep, and another of 'a rooster, two chickens and their little ones".
89:
191:
158:
1559:
1021:
712:
Have you done a study on the ratio of notable artworks to notable artists? If not how would you reach the conclusion that
607:
444:
1937:
40:
1795:
My stance would be that the onus is on an editor to present reasons why an artwork hanging in an important museum is
1415:
I would also oppose renaming this article to Voordecker, as I can find no evidence that the artist is notable either.
1820:
1763:
307:
217:
799:
238:
Some paintings have perps, and this is one of them. If it was given to me I'd junk it and re-use the stretchers.
152:
1717:
Een eeuw apart: het Rijksmuseum en de Nederlandse schilderkunst in de 19de eeuw, Amsterdam 1993, p. 24, afb. 22.
1556:
1118:
artist, in my opinion. I think the conversation has steered away from the focus of the article and the AfD. -
1094:
1053:
979:
912:
831:
807:
788:
762:
734:
697:
572:
519:
483:
325:
277:
262:
229:
1908:
1892:
1876:
1861:
1838:
1778:
1659:
1632:
1614:
1583:
1530:
1508:; if you think he does, I encourage you to prove me wrong, and if so I would be happy to change my !vote to
1479:
1449:
1375:
1354:
1339:
1310:
1285:
1271:
1256:
1229:
1207:
1189:
1139:
1124:
1112:
1098:
1076:
1057:
1040:
1026:
1004:
983:
969:
950:
930:
916:
886:
835:
811:
792:
766:
752:
738:
724:
701:
679:
652:
628:
612:
576:
542:
523:
505:
487:
471:
457:
433:
405:
382:
361:
346:
329:
281:
266:
247:
233:
148:
71:
1802:
1484:
I welcome your refutation, but simply saying it is "clearly wrong" doesn't help. Neither does a mention in
1829:
historic art in museums (as opposed to new contemporary art, where many do, often with some sort of COI).
1727:
Friedrich Markus Huebner, De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850), Den Haag, 1944, afb. 31.
1933:
303:
243:
213:
36:
1404:
874:
596:
is the AFD outcome appropriate for moving the article to "Henri Voordecker" (retaining the article). --
198:
1243:
1579:
1222:
1182:
1090:
1049:
975:
819:
803:
758:
730:
625:
568:
515:
479:
370:
358:
343:
321:
258:
225:
184:
93:
1638:
1593:
1563:
1505:
1235:
1888:
1857:
1816:
1759:
1655:
1610:
1526:
1445:
1371:
1350:
1306:
1281:
1252:
1203:
1135:
1108:
1072:
1036:
1000:
965:
882:
776:
720:
714:"or most artists one could say that hardly any work an artist makes is notable in and of itself"?
648:
538:
501:
1567:
1323:
1904:
1872:
1834:
1774:
1628:
1475:
1335:
1016:
780:
602:
453:
401:
378:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1932:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1712:
Ad van Pinxteren, Het Rijks op reis; Het Volk Verbeeld, Goltziusmuseum (Venlo), 1993, nr. 41.
1048:
seems in some way bizarre to you, or contrary to Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines on notability.
164:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1620:
1392:
1388:
1319:
1267:
926:
748:
675:
467:
429:
421:
412:
299:
254:
239:
209:
57:
53:
1793:"I would absolutely welcome a discussion on specific notability criteria for works of art".
1501:
1239:
1168:
1848:
information, the argument is that it fails notability should not be allowed, because that
1409:
772:
1545:
974:
I can't think of many notable artists who are not "long gone but the painting lives on."
462:
If by "it" you mean the painting, this is (apparently) still simply an entry in a list.
85:
77:
1575:
1400:
1217:
1177:
1086:
1485:
1884:
1853:
1812:
1788:
1755:
1708:
the list below. Within a couple of days these titles will appear on our website too.
1642:
1597:
1513:
1432:
1367:
1346:
1302:
1277:
1248:
1213:
1199:
1131:
1119:
1104:
1068:
1032:
996:
961:
945:
878:
716:
644:
534:
497:
873:
What are our notability requirements for works of art? I've raised this question at
729:
Good point. Also, let's not forget that there are notable works by unknown artists?
60:, but I will leave it to those with access to the relevant sources to decide which.
1900:
1868:
1830:
1770:
1624:
1497:
1471:
1331:
1011:
597:
449:
397:
374:
61:
123:
1242:. That is not entirely sensible because works of art are a distinct exception to
1103:
Totally different situation. The life of van Gogh was extensively written about.
1592:
I actually thought about writing, after I claimed that I did not see passage of
1549:
1263:
990:
922:
744:
671:
558:
463:
425:
417:
317:
1212:
A detailed discussion of my taste in art is not relevant to this AfD debate,
1426:
enough to be displayed there, but the overwhelming majority of them are not
562:
1234:
My recommendation to the closing administer is to WP:RELIST the discussion
1407:
with the information about Voordecker rather than the artwork itself (cf.
551:
Then I guess "barely notable" is good enough for me... along the lines of
553:"Henri Voordecker is generally seen as ntbale only for his 1826 painting
1490:
Benezit’s distinguishing features include its entries on obscure artists
1548:
and the sources listed there, this artist's work is collected in the
665:
notable; at least it isn't until someone can find some discussion of
992:"some masterpieces by Rembrandt, Frans Hals, and Johannes Vermeer."
875:
Knowledge (XXG):Teahouse#notability requirements for works of art
1926:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
779:, as is the work itself, but he has done many non-notable works
639:. Obviously notable. I would guess that what some are finding
1463:
743:
Is this line of argument supposed to be taking us somewhere?
1276:
There are no guidelines for the notability of works of art.
921:
According to the preface, this is an exhibition catalogue.
373:- that should be the visuals arts list, not the arts one.
298:
that the BM's biog is limited to dates of birth and death.
1216:. If you are curious, we can discuss it on my talk page.
781:
like the sketch "under my skin" shown here at bottom left
1623:. A birthday present from Victoria to Albert, no less.
1574:
by removing verifiable content about such an artist. --
757:
I was offering an observation, not a line of argument.
119:
115:
111:
1316:
De romantische schilderkunst in Vlaanderen (1780-1850)
183:
52:. The consensus here is that the article be moved to
818:Martinevans123, you made me think of Charlie Ray's
197:
420:. The article itself is the result of a move from
478:No objection. Would seem a sensible move anyway.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1940:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1566:. He was notable when he was collected and per
1089:. Is that because his sunflowers are so famous?
622:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions
355:list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions
8:
1619:As noted above, he is also in the (British)
620:Note: This debate has been included in the
353:Note: This debate has been included in the
338:Note: This debate has been included in the
1470:have entries in Benezit have survived AFD.
1422:, would have its own article. They are all
1420:their total collection of 1 million objects
619:
352:
337:
316:Why not just take a few days off to enjoy
1676:I wrote to the Rijksmuseum the following:
1637:Understood. Then I would agree he passes
340:list of Arts-related deletion discussions
1769:This would seem to confirm notability.
1489:
1419:
1236:"in an attempt to determine consensus"
826:is something that deserves an article.
1554:Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1395:if that is more prevalent (formerly
257:is not a valid reason for deletion.
1458:Unfortunately your belief that the
1198:Why do you not like the painting?
1085:that other Dutch painter guy. Not
24:
1546:Dutch Knowledge (XXG) bio article
905:this 1834 "Notice of new works"
1703:I received this as a response:
1:
1486:Benezit Dictionary of Artists
445:Benezit Dictionary of Artists
1909:17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1893:16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1877:15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1862:14:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1839:14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1821:14:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1779:14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1764:13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1660:14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1633:13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1615:08:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1584:05:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1531:03:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1480:03:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1450:03:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1376:11:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1355:00:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1340:00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1311:23:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1286:22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1272:22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1257:22:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1230:04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1208:23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1190:23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1140:13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1125:13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1113:23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1099:23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1077:22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1058:22:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1041:22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1027:22:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1005:22:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
984:22:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
970:21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
951:21:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
931:14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
917:08:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
887:21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
836:04:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
812:19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
793:18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
767:15:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
753:14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
739:12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
725:12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
702:07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
680:18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
653:17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
629:17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
613:16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
577:22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
543:22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
524:21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
506:17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
488:14:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
472:17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
458:16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
434:14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
406:14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
383:14:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
362:13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
347:13:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
330:13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
308:13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
282:08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
267:13:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
248:13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
234:12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
218:12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
72:06:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
1488:; from the website itself,
1364:Update on the Comment above
1957:
1562:, and accordingly passes
692:notable in and of itself.
1929:Please do not modify it.
1560:Belgian Royal Collection
1081:Well, I certainly don't
32:Please do not modify it.
442:It is mentioned in the
253:Intended re-use of the
775:is well known for his
1167:This is simply not a
798:Ooh. Suddenly I feel
1431:wouldn't meet them.
76:
557:which hangs in the
496:about such a move?
1895:
1692:by anyone of note.
777:Angel of the North
1881:
903:Note: I did find
838:
814:
631:
364:
349:
332:
269:
1948:
1931:
1650:
1648:
1621:Royal Collection
1605:
1603:
1521:
1519:
1440:
1438:
1393:Henri Voordecker
1389:Henry Voordecker
1320:Royal Collection
1227:
1225:Let's discuss it
1187:
1185:Let's discuss it
1024:
1019:
1014:
817:
797:
641:"howlingly dull"
610:
605:
600:
422:Henry Voordecker
413:Henri Voordecker
315:
252:
202:
201:
187:
139:
127:
109:
69:
65:
58:Henri Voordecker
54:Henry Voordecker
34:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1938:deletion review
1927:
1646:
1645:
1601:
1600:
1517:
1516:
1436:
1435:
1410:The Night Watch
1223:
1183:
1022:
1017:
1012:
773:Anthony Gormley
661:It's obviously
608:
603:
598:
144:
135:
100:
84:
81:
67:
63:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1954:
1952:
1943:
1942:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1782:
1781:
1746:
1745:
1740:
1739:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1673:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1587:
1586:
1564:WP:ARTIST#4(d)
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1495:
1453:
1452:
1429:
1425:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1326:also mentions
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1193:
1192:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1091:Martinevans123
1050:Martinevans123
1045:
1044:
1043:
976:Martinevans123
954:
953:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
909:96.127.242.251
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
828:96.127.242.251
804:Martinevans123
785:96.127.242.251
759:Martinevans123
731:Martinevans123
705:
704:
694:96.127.242.251
685:
684:
683:
682:
656:
655:
633:
632:
626:Mark the train
616:
615:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
569:Martinevans123
546:
545:
527:
526:
516:Martinevans123
509:
508:
492:What would be
480:Martinevans123
476:
475:
474:
437:
436:
408:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
371:Mark the train
359:Mark the train
350:
344:Mark the train
335:
334:
333:
322:Martinevans123
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
274:96.127.242.251
259:Martinevans123
226:Martinevans123
205:
204:
141:
80:
75:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1953:
1941:
1939:
1935:
1930:
1924:
1923:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1897:
1896:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1804:
1803:WP:NOTINHERIT
1800:
1799:
1794:
1790:
1787:. Agree with
1786:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1751:
1750:
1742:
1741:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1694:
1693:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1677:
1671:
1670:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1640:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1493:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1427:
1423:
1421:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1406:
1405:WP:COATRACKed
1402:
1399:) Agree with
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1328:Hunter's Home
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1020:
1015:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
989:which houses
987:
986:
985:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
967:
963:
958:
957:
956:
955:
952:
949:
948:
943:
940:
939:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
816:
815:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
715:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
690:
687:
686:
681:
677:
673:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
634:
630:
627:
623:
618:
617:
614:
611:
606:
601:
595:
592:
591:
578:
574:
570:
566:
564:
560:
554:
550:
549:
548:
547:
544:
540:
536:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
409:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
363:
360:
356:
351:
348:
345:
341:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
296:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
146:Find sources:
142:
138:
134:
131:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:Hunter's Home
83:
82:
79:
78:Hunter's Home
74:
73:
70:
66:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1928:
1925:
1849:
1845:
1807:
1806:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1784:
1783:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1696:
1695:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1644:
1643:
1599:
1598:
1571:
1541:
1515:
1514:
1509:
1467:
1464:Dutch WP bio
1459:
1434:
1433:
1414:
1408:
1396:
1384:
1363:
1327:
1315:
1298:
1224:
1218:
1184:
1178:
1173:
1164:
1120:
1082:
1064:
991:
946:
941:
823:
713:
688:
666:
662:
640:
636:
593:
556:
555:Jagerswoning
552:
493:
443:
410:
393:
294:
292:
206:
194:
188:
180:
173:
167:
161:
155:
145:
132:
62:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1550:Rijksmuseum
1498:a dead link
1424:significant
820:Plank Piece
559:Rijksmuseum
418:Rijksmuseum
318:this beauty
300:TheLongTone
240:TheLongTone
210:TheLongTone
171:free images
1738:vermaken'.
1558:, and the
1324:Their page
1244:WP:INHERIT
1174:irrelevant
1087:personally
800:all at sea
494:"sensible"
255:stretchers
1934:talk page
1811:notable.
1749:Me again:
1744:eenheid".
1639:WP:ARTIST
1594:WP:ARTIST
1576:Arxiloxos
1506:WP:ARTIST
1401:Cullen328
563:Amsterdam
37:talk page
1936:or in a
1885:Bus stop
1854:Bus stop
1813:Bus stop
1789:Cthomas3
1756:Bus stop
1572:improved
1568:WP:NTEMP
1494:Mentions
1368:Bus stop
1347:Bus stop
1303:Bus stop
1278:Bus stop
1249:Bus stop
1214:Bus stop
1200:Bus stop
1132:Bus stop
1121:NsTaGaTr
1105:Bus stop
1083:remember
1069:Bus stop
1065:remember
1033:Bus stop
997:Bus stop
962:Bus stop
960:artist.
947:NsTaGaTr
879:Bus stop
717:Bus stop
645:Bus stop
535:Bus stop
498:Bus stop
411:Move to
130:View log
39:or in a
1901:Johnbod
1869:Johnbod
1831:Johnbod
1785:Comment
1771:Johnbod
1698:others?
1625:Johnbod
1472:Johnbod
1428:notable
1332:Johnbod
1299:Comment
1169:notable
450:Johnbod
398:Johnbod
375:Johnbod
177:WP refs
165:scholar
103:protect
98:history
1649:Thomas
1604:Thomas
1552:, the
1520:Thomas
1502:WP:GNG
1468:didn't
1460:artist
1439:Thomas
1397:Delete
1264:Mangoe
1240:WP:GNG
1219:Cullen
1179:Cullen
1165:Delete
923:Mangoe
822:. Now
745:Mangoe
672:Mangoe
464:Mangoe
426:Mangoe
149:Google
107:delete
1791:that
1391:, or
689:Merge
567:etc.
565:...."
295:point
293:The '
192:JSTOR
153:books
137:Stats
124:views
116:watch
112:links
68:Train
16:<
1905:talk
1889:talk
1873:talk
1858:talk
1850:some
1846:some
1835:talk
1817:talk
1775:talk
1760:talk
1656:talk
1629:talk
1611:talk
1580:talk
1542:Keep
1527:talk
1510:Move
1476:talk
1446:talk
1385:Move
1372:talk
1351:talk
1336:talk
1307:talk
1282:talk
1268:talk
1253:talk
1204:talk
1136:talk
1109:talk
1095:talk
1073:talk
1054:talk
1037:talk
1001:talk
980:talk
966:talk
942:Keep
927:talk
913:talk
883:talk
832:talk
824:that
808:talk
789:talk
763:talk
749:talk
735:talk
721:talk
698:talk
676:talk
667:this
649:talk
637:Keep
594:Keep
573:talk
539:talk
520:talk
502:talk
484:talk
468:talk
454:talk
430:talk
402:talk
394:Keep
379:talk
326:talk
304:talk
278:talk
263:talk
244:talk
230:talk
214:talk
185:FENS
159:news
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
50:keep
1808:not
1798:not
1504:or
1387:to
1018:ncr
663:not
604:ncr
561:in
199:TWL
128:– (
56:or
1907:)
1891:)
1875:)
1860:)
1837:)
1819:)
1777:)
1762:)
1658:)
1641:.
1631:)
1613:)
1582:)
1529:)
1512:.
1492:.
1478:)
1448:)
1374:)
1353:)
1338:)
1322:.
1309:)
1284:)
1270:)
1255:)
1206:)
1138:)
1111:)
1097:)
1075:)
1056:)
1039:)
1023:am
1013:do
1003:)
982:)
968:)
929:)
915:)
885:)
877:.
834:)
810:)
802:.
791:)
783:.
765:)
751:)
737:)
723:)
700:)
678:)
651:)
624:.
609:am
599:do
575:)
541:)
522:)
504:)
486:)
470:)
456:)
448:.
432:)
404:)
381:)
357:.
342:.
328:)
320:.
306:)
280:)
265:)
246:)
232:)
216:)
179:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
1903:(
1887:(
1871:(
1856:(
1833:(
1815:(
1773:(
1758:(
1654:(
1647:C
1627:(
1609:(
1602:C
1578:(
1525:(
1518:C
1474:(
1444:(
1437:C
1370:(
1349:(
1334:(
1305:(
1280:(
1266:(
1251:(
1202:(
1134:(
1107:(
1093:(
1071:(
1052:(
1035:(
999:(
978:(
964:(
925:(
911:(
881:(
830:(
806:(
787:(
761:(
747:(
733:(
719:(
696:(
674:(
647:(
571:(
537:(
518:(
500:(
482:(
466:(
452:(
428:(
400:(
377:(
369:@
324:(
302:(
276:(
261:(
242:(
228:(
212:(
203:)
195:·
189:·
181:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
151:(
143:(
140:)
133:·
126:)
88:(
64:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.