Deletion of Hunter's Home

Comment: This is simply not a |notable 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 notable" or "obviously notable" without further explanation should be discounted by the closing administrator. The nominator's critical assessment of the painting is ''irrelevant'', 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and then move and refocus this to be a biographical article about the artist with appropriate discussions of his artworks. Per the :nl:Henry Voordecker|Dutch Wikipedia bio article and the sources listed there, this artist's work is collected in the Rijksmuseum, the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgiumhttps://www.fine-arts-museum.be/nl/de-collectie/henri-voordecker-de-duiventil, and the :nl:Koninklijke Collectie (België)|Belgian Royal Collection, and accordingly passes #4(d).  He was notable when he was collected and per  remains so.  And I can't fathom any basis for concluding that Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of 19th century art would be ''improved'' by removing verifiable content about such an artist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: to Henry Voordecker, or Henri Voordecker if that is more prevalent (formerly Delete) Agree with {{u|Cullen328}} 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 ed with the information about Voordecker rather than the artwork itself (cf. ''The Night Watch'', 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. I would also oppose renaming this article to Voordecker, as I can find no evidence that the artist is notable either. 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 {{tq|their total collection of 1 million objects}}, would have its own article. They are all significant enough to be displayed there, but the overwhelming majority of them are not notable 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 wouldn't meet them
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)