Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Current interpretations of WP:NCORP fail to adequately evaluate Art Galleries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have watched over the last year as numerous contemporary art galleries have been deleted at AFD under the new WP:NCORP guidelines. I agree with many of these decisions, but some I disagree with. As someone who !votes with consensus over 90% of the time, I particularly disagree with the logic behind these decisions, which amounts to something like this:

1. WP:NCORP requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject,"
2. Because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED many editors argue that reviews of exhibitions at the gallery cannot be used to establish WP:NCORP - the argument here is that the review is of the artist and not the gallery

Here are some prime examples of this argument in action, across a range of articles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Fine Art definitely should have been deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Sarthe Gallery - sharing this primarily to show the dissensus about the interpretation of these rules
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lee Gallery
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq

Here is my problem with this argument:

• Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. Many many many books have been writing trying to understand the complicated relationship between art and commerce, and the general summary is: its complicated. What that means here, is you can't just call an art gallery just a "business concern"
• This argument doesn't consider that there is difference between galleries that operate on the primary and secondary markets.
  • Artist run spaces do not sell work, and are thus not even "marketing and selling products"
  • Primary market galleries typically work closely with a small group of artists, and work closely to co-produce exhibitions. As Arthur Danto has argued, these galleries produce the context that makes an object into a work of art. The review of the art in the gallery, is a review of the gallery also
  • Secondary market galleries merely buy and sell artworks. This is the only instance where the argument that the gallery merely buys and sells objects is valid.
• This argument alternately considers artists
  • Products that the gallery produces, which is not how galleries work: As Justlettersandnumbers wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Sarthe Gallery, "a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building."
  • Independent entities that the gallery merely provides the space for

At present we have a gallery called Foxy Production that is up at AFD, which I think is a prime example of the way that these interpretations of these rules are failing. (Full COI disclosure, as an active artist I am an acquaintance of one of their artists, and have met one of the two gallery owners on a couple of occasions, though I doubt he would remember me.) I strongly differentiate this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition Gallery (2nd nomination) which is also up at AFD right now, and should be deleted. By some estimates there are 1500 art galleries in NYC, the center of the artworld, and of course they are not all considered significant; at present we only have 109 Category:Art galleries in Manhattan, and if we apply these rules, we will probably only have 30 or 40. And yet we have thousands of NYC Artists. In the NYC artworld, Foxy Production is considered a significant gallery:

• Its exhibitions regularly receive reviews in the major art press (NYT, NYR, Artforum, Artnews, Freize, etc). In this instance, FP has over 60 hits in a NYT search, 37 in Artforum, 57 in Artnews.
• and the artists it represents win significant awards, and show in major international exhibitions.

After voting to !keep, and in response to the WP:NCORP/WP:NOTINHERITED argument, Userqio struck their vote, and wrote "I'm not sure how a contemporary art gallery could even establish notability since they're not likely to be the subject of a conventional article, since the only "product" they produce is other people's work and they are not old enough to appear in most history books." This pretty much sums it up.

The real question here, is whether Wikipedia seeks to exclude nearly all contemporary art galleries, as these interpretations essentially exclude nearly all galleries. I don't see those rules being deployed to produce the same double bind for

• Lists of video game companies
• Category:Fantasy book publishers
• Category:Science fiction publishers
• Category:Small press publishing companies

Do we need to establish a clear guidance re the interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED for galleries, or do we need a separate set of rules for Galleries? If we do neither, the vast majority of the existing articles will be deleted.

Pinging the active editors at AFD for Artists and Visual Art: @ThatMontrealIP, Vexations, RebeccaGreen, PamD, Coolabahapple, Heathart, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, Montanabw, E.M.Gregory, Bus stop, Justlettersandnumbers, and Arthistorian1977: --Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• "or do we need a separate set of rules for Galleries?" We need "a separate set of rules for Galleries". Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not to totally distract from the main argument, I wonder if we may also need a separate set of rules for curators, to recognize their work, since most coverage tends to focus on the shows and the artists but say little about the persons curating them. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Guidelines are called for addressing galleries operating in the "primary market". It is often not understood that "these galleries produce the context that makes an object into a work of art." "The art market as a whole is affected by its two main parts: the primary art market, where new art comes to the market for the first time, and the secondary market, for existing art that has been sold at least once before." Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am skeptical. Art galleries fall half-way between being a commercial organization, and a museum... and since both commercial organizations and museums are covered by WP:ORG, I don't see why art galleries wouldn't. I am also unsure of what criteria we would use to distinguish notable art galleries from non-notable art galleries - other than being "...the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (ie the criteria outlined at WP:ORG). OK, we might be able to highlight a few things that would indicate that the necessary independent coverage is likely, but we still need to demonstrate that coverage to convert the likelihood into reality. Essentially all an SNG would do is tell editors how to apply WP:ORG's alredy existing criteria to the specific topic of art galleries. I am not sure there is any need to do this. Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• An art gallery showing "new" artists should be of special concern to us. Such a gallery is picking something unknown and placing a bet on it. It is a commercially risky thing to do but all art somewhere in its past had to enter the marketplace by means of a gallery making the crucial decision that the art was worth hosting. A "primary" art gallery works in conjunction with artists to steer tastes in a particular direction. When we see indications of such primary decisions being made by galleries we should cut them a little slack. A solid track record of exhibitions by relatively unknown artists is an indication that a gallery is "primary" rather than "secondary". This turns WP:INHERITED on its head, or at least it presents another way of considering heritability. We do not want to see notable artists. A gallery is advantaged as concerns our notability standards by its showing non-notable artists. Reviews of shows are one way we have indication of the types of shows galleries exhibit. But another indication is simply the gallery's list of previous exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment this is not a bad idea. The outcome would be more coverage of art institutions, large or small. I have typically argued against galleries as notable under WP:NOTINHERITED, as I was just following the rules. Getting out from under those rules, and looking at TRP's arguments above, It's not such a bad idea to revisit them. Just one thought: the criteria needs some way to avoid commercial promotion. We will open the floodgates for places like Joe and Irma's Country Store and Framing Gallery if we do not have strict notability guidelines for this. Granting agencies here in Canada actually assess the eligibility of galleries seeking funding by laying out a set of requirements and assessing activities, so we perhaps need something similar. This is from the Canada Council's grant guidelines (click resources, guidelines on this page) for one of their programs:

• have received at least 2 Canada Council project grants in the last 5 years...
• be an incorporated not-for-profit arts organization
• work with a professional staff
• have at least 5 years of continuous professional programming that is accessible to the public
• have had total revenues exceeding $75 000 in each of the last 3 years (some exceptions may be considered)

Some possible criteria for us to include in WP:NCORP:

• has operated an exhibition schedule for five years or more, and
• Has shown ten or more notable artists (i.e. the artists have wiki pages themselves) in different exhibitions over X years

Even with this, we will end up with pages that read "X gallery is a gallery in Y, and has shown A,B and C". So it ends up being a Yellow Pages ad (remember those?). So we need something to ensure that it will enable articles beyond just listings.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• The artists that have shown in a gallery don't have to be notable. We should not place more weight on those artists that have Wikipedia pages when evaluating galleries for notability. There are different criteria for primary and secondary galleries and all those in between. Standard criteria apply to secondary galleries. I think we are addressing the special notability needs of primary galleries. For those, the track record of exhibitions is of primary importance. If a gallery has a new show of a relatively unknown artist every 3 months and has done so for several years we have an indication this is serious gallery trying to "discover" new artists and as a consequence this gallery is of special interest to us due to its important function as a tastemaker and for its connoisseurship. In reality galleries transition from primary to secondary with the passage of time and if they are successful. Artist's careers can follow similar trajectories. I think it is in Wikipedia's interest to try to capture galleries in nascent stages. I will concede there is no foolproof way of doing this. But we should not be rejecting small, scrappy operations that nevertheless seem to be important. The hallmarks of those operations can be as little of just a few years of continuous exhibitions and with notice taken in the form of reviews of exhibitions. I think we have found these criteria met in AfD's on art galleries that were subsequently deleted. The next time an editor creates an article on a relatively obscure gallery we should be asking ourselves if the gallery serves some vital purpose in introducing new trends in the art world. Any artist with no track record of sales of their work suggests that a gallery showing their work is a "serious" gallery and worthy of our consideration. Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• You'll need to define "vital purpose" and "serious gallery" in a few words that fit a notability guideline. We know what it means because I can tell we are both familiar with North American contemporary art standards. However for the other 5000 wiki editors who might edit the pages, and for the 25,000 gallery owners who want to make a page, those phrases could easily cover someone who made a serious investment of their life savings to open the world's first gallery that shows teddy bear or Barbie-themed art. Any gallery owner will tell you they are serious and vital about their work, and some will have coverage to show it... for example the " B&G Gallery in Rutland" has a Barbie themed show that might fit your criteria above. I am on your side in this discussion, but we need something more than vague descriptions to flesh out a notability criteria. Building on the existing research into who is notable (i.e. the artists) makes a lot of sense. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Building on the existing research into who is notable (i.e. the artists) makes a lot of sense." No it does not. In fact it is counterproductive. Nor are we trying to determine which gallery is "serious" or serves a "vital purpose". I know I said that, but that can't be a criteria for notability. I think we should be looking for a track record of exhibitions spanning a period of time—say 3 years—and coverage in reviews of those exhibitions. We actually cannot determine whether a gallery is "good" or not worthy of our space. And even if we could identify "good" galleries, editorial opinions would vary. What we do know is it costs money to run an art gallery. Under that pressure of mounting costs over time, a gallery in its nascent stages is trying to promote unknown artists and thereby make money. I am arguing that drama is worthy of representation in our pages. I am arguing that any gallery with a multi-year track record of one exhibition after another is worthy of our consideration. I think the material for such an article would come from the reviews of exhibitions. If the reviews are of expressive abstract painting, that might be something we could add to the article. This could take the form of a series of quotes from reviews. If the reviews are of minimalistic abstract paintings, that is a point we would want to include in our article. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How do we determine a gallery’s track record? Answer... by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the gallery. In other words, the coverage already required by WP:ORG. It actually does not matter if a gallery caters to the primary market or secondary market. Nor does it matter if focuses on new artists or old masters. What matters is that there is significant coverage about it - whatever market it caters to or type of art/artists it focuses on. Blueboar (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus Stop says "the material for such an article would come from the reviews of exhibitions" but there generally generally isn't any material in the article about the galleries-- it is all about the artists. The lack of coverage about the gallery itself (coverage is usually about the artist, not the gallery), despite perceived notability, is the issue that brings us here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blueboar—an art gallery is notable if it consistently mounts art exhibitions. We don't care if sources are "reliable" or "independent". You say "What matters is that there is significant coverage about it". Why? Please tell me why you would want "significant coverage about it"? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, every art gallery consistently mounts art exhibits (that’s the definition of an art gallery). What separates± notable galleries from non-notable galleries is the fact that people write about them... and do so in reasonable depth. That is fundamental to the entire concept of notability here on WP. You have been contributing to WP long enough to understand that. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar—if "every art gallery consistently mounts art exhibits" then we should have an article about every art gallery. But we have to know that a gallery "consistently mounts art exhibits". This is derived from reviews of art shows. Such reviews can confirm the existence of an art gallery as well as the consistency of its exhibition schedule. And such reviews provide us material for describing the nature of the art gallery. Mostly painting? Mostly sculpture? Mostly representational? Mostly non-referential? Conceptual? Installation? Performance? Expressive? Austere? We derive the content for our articles on art galleries from reviews of exhibitions. And reviews confirm the existence of the art gallery and that it consistently mounts art exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we have hit the crux of things: how can we write articles about galleries where there is no in-depth coverage about the gallery itself? Without insisting on in-depth coverage, as we do in the current criteria, using the proposed criteria that "reviews confirm the existence of the art gallery and that it consistently mounts art exhibitions" will just mean we have articles that say the gallery exists. That could be covered in a list.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"how can we write articles about galleries where there is no in-depth coverage about the gallery itself?" Please give me an example of "coverage about the gallery itself". Would that mean coverage of the rest rooms? The lighting? The neighborhood? What would "coverage about the gallery itself" mean? Give me an example. Galleries are in essence empty spaces. Reviews of art exhibitions tell us what goes on in these empty spaces. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

*You are pointing out exactly the problem, which is why do we want to create articles on empty spaces without specific and detailed coverage of the history of those spaces as entities unto themselves? Specific coverage might be books or articles on the history of the gallery or its role in the community. The show reviews relate to the artist's work in an empty space, and those go towards establishing artist notability. I'm willing to say that we can build a notability criteria for galleries, but it has to contribute some content about the gallery itself, not just the things that go on inside it. there has to be something there that proves the activities are notable. This is why I proposed saying "if you show ten wiki notable artists, your activities are probably notable" as a criteria. If we just make articles for empty spaces that show notable things, then every arena, meeting place and event space that shows notable things gets an article. My own proposed criteria would be something like this:

• A gallery is notable if it has produced exhibitions continuously for a three year period and the exhibitions of several notable artists by the gallery have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources.

TLDR: let's not argue, but rather hear your proposal for the criteria wording.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The notability standard that would have to be met should be a continuous exhibition schedule spanning 3 years as indicated by reviews of those art exhibitions. We would not have to have reviews of every exhibition. We would just want to be satisfied that the gallery is in operation and not defunct. A review of an art exhibition potentially confers notability on 3 entities—the artist, the artwork, and the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I initially wrote a lot, but I'll condense: Not all subjects are equal in notability, because our priority isn't what's important in a given domain but what subjects receive coverage in reliable sources that let us write a solid, neutral encyclopedia article rather than a directory listing permastub or promotional pieces. It's a necessary evil that's absolutely unfair to people, places, and things in many fields. It means that a video game is far more likely to have an article than an economist, and a gossip website more likely than a literary journal. The answer, which I think the semi-recent overhaul of WP:ORG was a step towards, is raising the standards for the former in each case rather than pushing up against WP:NOT and WP:NPOV in order to carve out a place for the latter. This is just to say that I would generally oppose subject-specific notability criteria that aren't directly tied to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.

Now then, that's not the only thing being proposed here. The other question is what counts as significant coverage, and to that end I think it's a valid point that we too often discredit certain types of coverage with e.g. NOTINHERITED. I think NOTINHERITED makes sense with a gallery, if the only mention of a gallery is in the details below a review, or otherwise a very brief mention, but I've seen NOTINHERITED applied as though no coverage of an exhibit should count for the gallery, and that's not necessarily the case at all. A review that puts a show in the context of the gallery, or which makes use of the gallery's contextualization, or, compares it with other shows at the gallery, etc. -- or which, obviously, talks about the gallery/gallerist in a nontrivial way -- is of course coverage of the gallery, and not just the artist. And I wouldn't be opposed to clarifying that somewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

These are artificial and preposterous distinctions being made between gallery, artwork, and artist. They are interrelated because an unknown artist is "picked" by a gallery. What we are primarily addressing here are galleries showing relatively unknown artwork by relatively unknown artists. It is in this realm that notability criteria need to be revised for art galleries. In short, a gallery does not have to be notable; it has to be functioning. Indication of its functioning is potentially found in reviews. You make a good point when you refer to a "permastub". If we can't write an article, based on reviews, then we shouldn't have an article on that gallery. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the "these" that are artificial and preposterous distinctions? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You say "A review that puts a show in the context of the gallery, or which makes use of the gallery's contextualization, or, compares it with other shows at the gallery, etc. -- or which, obviously, talks about the gallery/gallerists in a nontrivial way -- is of course coverage of the gallery, and not just the artist." A review can pertain to artist, artwork, and gallery. If a gallery has been in business for only a year or two, and it is seeking undiscovered artists, a review of a show is likely to confer notability on all three: artist, artwork, and gallery. It is the gallerist's "eye" which chose the artwork of one artist out of the 100 artists that approached that gallerist seeking to exhibit their work in the gallery's space. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of this discussion makes a clear point of the significant difference between a gallery and a museum. A gallery is in the business of selling art - they are basically a storefront. A gallery is in the business of collecting and displaying art for historical preservation. The latter is much more significant in the long term, while galleries, like stores, come and go. Certainly some "galleries" are important, one could argue Barclay's is such a beast. But most other galleries are simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought. That's why NCORP fully applies, and why we should not make special exemptions to galleries. --Masem (t) 03:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—the art exhibitions held at art galleries are reviewed. Do those reviews of art exhibitions have bearing on the notability of the art gallery at which the exhibition is held? Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not, on the assumption that the gallery is just named. --Masem (t) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—you say "Absolutely not, on the assumption that the gallery is just named." Yes, the assumption is the gallery is just named. But isn't it also a common sense assumption that the gallery was instrumental in bringing about the art exhibition? Did the artist walk in to the gallery one day and make a nonnegotiable demand that their artwork be displayed in the gallery? Or would it be more reasonable to assume the gallery owner had a screening process in place, and only chose those applicants whose work met the gallerist's tastes? Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can document how a gallery goes out to select art in an in-depth manner from a secondary source, then no, that factor has no bearing on the notability of galleries. Commercial stores have to do similar research to figure out what products to sell, for example, and we don't presume notability because that's a process they have; it might lead to notability (such as Whole Foods being known to feature more organic foods) but not without sources to back it. --Masem (t) 15:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"but not without sources to back it" The sources are backing it in those cases in which there are reviews of art exhibitions, are they not? You mention "Whole Foods being known to feature more organic foods". How do we acquire that knowledge? Don't we acquire that knowledge by means commentary found in reliable sources telling us that Whole Foods carries a lot of organic foods? Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, there are lots of articles in RS talking about how Whole foods sells their organic produce. I looked and saw at least six recent ones. But they were all about the company, not the produce. The problem with basing gallery notability solely on reviews of artists would be like saying Whole foods is notable based on sustained reviews of their lettuce. We need something more in a gallery notability criteria.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"We need something more in a gallery notability criteria." Not necessarily. Reviews of shows at galleries can provide us with sufficient information to write an article. A gallery in existence for 3 years can be known, based on reviews of shows, for painting, or sculpture, or performance pieces or expressive painting or reductivist painting or funk art. Galleries have personalities. Galleries are known for their inclinations in art. A painting is not a painting. It is a particular entity. Reviews of art shows typically try to describe the "eye" of the gallery owner. Is this gallery known for emphasis on representationalism? Does this gallery tend to show two-dimensional work? Does this gallery show a disproportionate number of female artists? Does this gallery mostly have group shows? Is this gallery known for pushing the limits on that which some might consider to be pornographic? Is this gallery known for its anodyne, pastoral, bucolic landscape paintings favored by interior decorators? Information about the gallery is potentially conveyed in reviews of art exhibitions. If good quality information is not found in the reviews that we examine for a given art gallery, that is an argument for not hosting an article on that gallery. We are trying to nail Jell-O to a tree. Notability for galleries can be found in reviews but isn't always found in reviews. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That argument that reviewers of art in a gallery implicitly give notability to the gallery makes zero sense and completely goes against all other notability guidelines. Its a non-starter. --Masem (t) 17:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Why? You are not explaining yourself. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Considering the purpose of WP:NORG, I'm not convinced anything needs to be done here. Setting the topic aside for a second, in order to write a Wikipedia article about a commercial entity, you need to be able to describe that entity through reliable, independent, secondary sources. I recently !voted at the Foxy Production AfD, and I understand the problem based only on that before search alone - the museum came up non-significantly in a multitude of announcements saying a particular exhibit was being hosted there, which should not count towards notability unless the announcement is independent and also discusses the gallery. Otherwise we quickly get into primary sourcing and WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• As with SportingFlyer, I haven't seen anything convincing either. Having spent way too much time going through all the arguments in favor of an art gallery-specific SNG (where they are arguments at all, given that "art is not fungible" and "galleries are not museums," for instance, invite an answer of "so what?"), they all seem to boil down to the premise that Art Galleries Are Really Important And Therefore Should Have Special Rules Enabling Their Articles To Survive All Challenges. However much I've patronized art galleries, I've yet to see a legitimate argument why they should be presumptively entitled to Wikipedia articles, the GNG be damned. This is a solution in search of a problem, and the real answer to that "too few" (says who?) art galleries can meet the GNG is that there just aren't that many notable art galleries. Ravenswing 00:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "the real answer to that "too few" (says who?) art galleries can meet the GNG is that there just aren't that many notable art galleries" Either that or "the GNG" is inappropriate for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• If you're advocating the latter, you're stipulating that art galleries are uniquely important to the point that they must be exempt from the notability standard just about every other article on Wikipedia must meet. Neither you nor any other editor has made a convincing case for that rather startling premise. Ravenswing 16:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "If you're advocating the latter, you're stipulating that art galleries are uniquely important to the point that they must be exempt from the notability standard just about every other article on Wikipedia must meet." No, I'm not advocating "art galleries are uniquely important". Their uniqueness is that reliable sources typically do not write about art galleries. The sort of galleries I have in mind are galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Their uniqueness is that reliable sources typically do not write about art galleries. How are we supposed to write an encyclopedic article about a topic that has no reliable sources? SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "How are we supposed to write an encyclopedic article about a topic that has no reliable sources?" In many instances there are reliable sources talking about the gallery but the article is deleted because they are deemed insufficient. And sometimes the support found in sources talking about the gallery can be supplemented by reliable sources reviewing art exhibitions at the gallery. This of course depends on the sort of material covered in the review. Finally the article can merely be a stub. This is preferable to deletion unless it is determined that Wikipedia really should not host an article on the gallery. The problem is applying ill-fitting notability criteria for galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a clue from the German Visual art guidelines

Maybe we can take some guidance from German Wikipedia, who have a guideline for commercial contemporary art galleries, at de:Wikipedia:Richtlinien_bildende_Kunst#Allgemeine_Kriterien_für_lexikalische_Relevanz_von_Galerien. They suggest that notability of a commercial contemporary art gallery can be established by:

• Regular participation in international art fairs Art Cologne, Art Basel, The Armory Show (art fair), Frieze Art Fair , The European Fine Art Fair
• Representation of at least two artists who participated in Documenta or the Venice Biennale.
• Publication of at least three exhibition catalogues that are in scientific libraries or sold by reputable art book stores like Printed Matter, Inc. or de:Buchhandlung Walther König.
• At least two early exhibitions of internationally known, outstanding artists whose work is represented in the collection of major museums of modern/contemporary art.

Look at the list of New York Galleries that participated in Art Basel in the last five years: 303 Gallery, Acquavella Galleries, Miguel Abreu Gallery, Blum & Poe, Marianne Boesky Gallery, Tanya Bonakdar Gallery, Bortolami (gallery), Gavin Brown's enterprise, Galerie Buchholz, Paula Cooper Gallery, Peter Freeman, Inc., Gagosian, Gladstone Gallery, Galerie Gmurzynska, Marian Goodman Gallery* Howard Greenberg Gallery, Richard Gray Gallery (AfD, Greene Naftali, Hauser & Wirth, Edwynn Houk Gallery, Casey Kaplan, kaufmann repetto, Sean Kelly, Anton Kern Gallery, Kukje Gallery / Tina Kim Gallery, Andrew Kreps Gallery, kurimanzutto, Simon Lee Gallery (AfD), Galerie Lelong & Co., Lehmann Maupin, Lévy Gorvy, Lisson Gallery, Luhring Augustine, Matthew Marks Gallery, Fergus McCaffrey, Metro Pictures, Mitchell-Innes & Nash, Mnuchin Gallery, Helly Nahmad Gallery, David Nolan Gallery, Pace Gallery, Perrotin, Petzel, Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Almine Rech, Reena Spaulings Fine Art, Salon 94, Jack Shainman Gallery, Sikkema Jenkins & Co., Skarstedt, Sperone Westwater, Van de Weghe Fine Art, Michael Werner Gallery, David Zwirner.

We might notice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray Gallery which was deleted with the rationale It carries on the routine business of a gallery, buying and selling works of art, and receives some routine coverage as a result. Some of those works are by famous artists, and thus attract media attention; but the purveyor does not inherit notability from the notability of the products purveyed and a single !vote. If we consider the German guidelines, we see that they participate in Art Basel and Frieze and represent Magdalena Abakanowicz, Bethany Collins, Jim Dine, Theaster Gates, Ewan Gibbs, Harold Gregor, David Hockney, Rashid Johnson, Alex Katz, David Klamen, Ellen Lanyon, Jim Lutes, Jaume Plensa, Judith Rothschild, Leon Polk Smith, Evelyn Statsinger, John Stezaker, John Storrs Theaster Gates was at documenta (13) and Rashid Johnson at the Venice Biennale. The gallery publishes artist's monographs (http://www.richardgraygallery.com/publications) that are held by reference libraries https://www.worldcat.org/search?q="Richard+Gray+Gallery". There is very no question that at least two of the artists they represent are represented in the collection of major museums of modern/contemporary art. Magdalena Abakanowicz, Jim Dine, David Hockney are represented in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for example. By German standards, this would very likely have been a Keep.

A futher argument for Keep might have been the "not an orphan" argument. I've never seen it used, but here it is: There are more than 15 articles that could or already do link to Richard Gray Gallery See https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?search=Richard+Gray+Gallery&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Richard_Gray_Gallery. This is an argument against the use of NOTINHERITED and for MOS:BUILD. The subject is not merely derivative of a notable topic, but connected in a meaningful way. I think we could have made the case for Keep at AfD, even though we currently have no subject-specific guideline for galleries. It may be possible to create one, but it has to be built by consensus, which means we have to start using better arguments in AfD debates, rather than rigidly following the rules. AfD cannot be run by checking of items from a list. Vexations (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Question: what about non-profit galleries? The German guidelines rule out galleries that do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on promotion at art fairs. The cost for a week at Art Basel is cited as $300K USD (or more) in this article. 500 square feet in the Entry-level galleries section at the Frieze art fair is $78.50 per sq foot, or about $40,000 USD. Plus airfares, hotel, meals, art shipping... think 100K for entry level. I think we become a part of the advertising machinery at that point, as we are only supporting galleries that make huge commercial sales. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a valid point. My proposal above only deals with commercial art galleries. Think of it as a way to separate the wheat a from the chaff. We've been offered the view that art galleries are simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought. The view that I am offering is completely different. Notable commercial art galleries are complex systems that provide services to both the artists they represent and their clients. They create value in ways that are unique and of encyclopedic interest (and occasionally transcend into the downright criminal). If anyone here thinks that an art gallery is a simple retail establishment, they really ought to be disabused of that notion. I think the criteria I listed above do that. Vexations (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Even with that view, they are like agents for actors and the like, trying to sell the actor around. And we definitely do not have any special treatment of how these agents are considered within notability guidelines. They are first and foremost in the business of making money, NCORP wholly applies. --Masem (t) 15:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Art galleries are quite different from impresarios. Impresarios don not take their artists to highly selective trade conventions, do not publish monographs on their artist's work nor do they offer free public access to their artists' performances. Vexations (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

All of this strikes me as special pleading. The sort of thing you are saying — "X is different from Y because Y does not do (list of things X does)" — could be repeated for any two types of subject covered by Wikipedia. Being different is not an argument for that difference contributing to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, mentioning logical fallacies here is a specific Western analytic philosophy mindset-- that most of us in the West have. Feminist philosophy would say to acknowledge difference... and don't we make special pleadings often in deletions (say, for articles on children, or other tricky issues)? WP:IAR also seems more like a feminist philosophy approach and not a hard western one that relies on analytic truth and logic. Which is all to say, we're not so hard and fast all the time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make the analogy to impresarios, but I explained why it is flawed and I how galleries and impresarios are different. That's not special pleading and there is no need to suggest that I am somehow deficient in my reasoning skills. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparing Galleries to Museums

Let’s take a moment to explore the concept of galleries as exhibition spaces (ignoring, for the moment, their commercial side). In this, the closest equivalent to an art gallery is an art museum. So... what criteria do we use to determine whether a museum is notable? What sources do we use, and what type of coverage within those sources indicate notability? Surely we can apply the same criteria to galleries. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Surely we can apply the same criteria to galleries." No, we cannot. The reason we are having this discussion is because art galleries, or at least some art galleries, especially small art galleries, or newly-created art galleries, fail to meet standard notability guidelines despite what some of us, certainly myself, see as their obvious importance and intrinsic notability. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That's probably not going to be a productive comparison as Museums attract a huge amount of independent coverage about their activities, building plans, collection acquisitions etc. Accordingly, there's no problem establishing notability by current standards for just about any museum. The problem we are addressing here is for smaller institutions, like this one in Vancouver, and some of the examples mentioned at he top of this post. The Contemporary Art gallery in Vancouver has a page, but look at the references-- they are pretty weak. For smaller galleries than that, it's a tough slog to pass our notability standards.

What you say is certainly true for the largest museums (especially those in major cities)... but not necessarily true for ones located in smaller towns. There are thousands of small art museums run by local or regional cultural/historical societies. Some are quite notable... others much less so... and some are not considered notable at all. What I want to explore is how we tell the difference? What type of coverage determines which are notable and which are not? Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an easy answer to that: WP:SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If a museum is small enough, or newly-created enough, it can also be at a disadvantage concerning our standard notability criteria. Probably the notability criteria have to be loosened up for museums too. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what notability guidelines are meant to keep out, newly created entities without any long-term significance. --Masem (t) 18:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"[S]ignificance" has to be defined. Selling (or displaying) shoe-shine polish is different from selling art. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

But "long-term" does not. --Masem (t) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"[L]ong-term" should probably also be defined. The intention is not for shoe-polish to last a long time, or at least not as long as your average work of art. And it is not just shoe-polish. All the consumer crap sold in the majority of crass, materialistic establishments, is not intended to have long-term use or value. With some exceptions art is posited as being "timeless". We commonly speak of art "standing the test of time". I'd say there is a difference. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Art may be timeless but galleries not so, since the art only psses through them. --Masem (t) 18:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You referenced products with "long-term significance". My response is that the products found in different establishments differ in "long-term significance", with art often thought of as having greater "long-term significance" than shoe-polish, razor blades, hubcaps, and turtlenecks, which tend to stretch out of shape. Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about the use of those products. We would be comparing that long-term to the shoe polish or blade manfucturer. And clearly companies like Kiwi (shoe polish) or Gilette are clearly notable as their products have been around, and the companies have gained notice over that time. --Masem (t) 19:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"We're not talking about the use of those products." Correct, we are talking about establishments selling those products. I don't know why you are talking about "Kiwi (shoe polish) or Gilette". These products are sold in retail stores, are they not? The retail store in this instance would be analogous to the art gallery, would it not? (By the way, it is Gillette.) Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

We have strayed from the focus of this thread, which is to explore art galleries as exhibition spaces, comparable to museums... and explore whether the criteria we use to determine whether a museum is notable (or not) would work for art galleries. Could we get back to that? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar—we can't apply similar criteria because the likely sourcing is not the same. Art galleries can often be described as being more-experimental and museums can often be described as being less-experimental. Sourcing doesn't follow experimental art in the same way sourcing follows non-experimental art. Nevertheless I think we want our project to host articles on the venues that house experimental art. The focus of any "sourcing" relative to places hosting experimental art is likely to be on the art exhibition. It is in the nature of experimental art venues for the institution itself to be eclipsed by art associated with the establishment that experimental art venue. The art may be questionable or it may be staid. Dubious art becomes less dubious in association with the less-experimental museums. You are asking if perhaps we can apply similar criteria. We cannot. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, there are many museums that exhibit experimental art. I am lucky enough to live in NYC, Which has several. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"there are many museums that exhibit experimental art" There is no definition of experimental art. But the tendency is for the more experimental art to be found in galleries and the less experimental art to be found in museums. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Furthermore, by definition, newly-emerging art should be considered experimental. The normal trajectory for art is from the experimental to the established. And the normal trajectory of art is from galleries to museums. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, reading through some of the results from a search from AfDs on art museums, I noticed that the following notability criteria were cited:

• museums are inherently notable
• accredited by the American Alliance of Museums (AAM)
• organizes touring exhibitions
• has a permanent collection
• number of visitors per year
• size of the collection
• collection includes works by notable artists

I'm not particularly impressed by any of these, although the accreditation assessment types used by the AAM may be useful in thinking about which aspects of a museum ought to be considered: operations, collections stewardship, educational role, community engagement and board leadership. I am not suggesting that we do the evaluation ourselves, of course, that is up to secondary sources. I do suggest that any art museum that has professional staff, collections management, and a policy-setting board is very likely notable. I don't see how most of these would be applicable to a commercial art gallery or even a non-collecting institution, like a Kunsthalle or a non-profit artist-run-centre. Similarities between collecting and non-collecting institutions would be the publication of exhibition catalogues, employment of professional curatorial staff and the organization of symposia. Vexations (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Every town has a museum, maybe even most villages (at least in the UK), not all of those are notable. I can well see how galleries and museums are the same.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Art Galleries are not simply Business Concerns

As I noted in my opening text, the discussion on Wikipedia about galleries misunderstands the nature, purpose and motivation of art galleries. @Masem: wrote that "A gallery is in the business of selling art - they are basically a storefront. [...] most other galleries are simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought"

As I noted in my opening text, there is a lot of scholarship on the complex relationship between art and commerce. Dave Beach has surveyed the 400 year history of art's economic exceptionalism: which is to say, people don't make art, sell art, or buy art for the same reasons they make, buy, or sell other things. In her distinction between labor and work, Hannah Arendt disentangled artmaking from other forms of labor. And as I noted above, Arthur Danto has discussed the role of art galleries in creating culture.

These three references just scratch the surface. While there are undoubtedly some art galleries who are in business solely to make a profit, the reality is that the vast majority have much more complicated motivations. They seek to make culture, and accrue cultural prestige.

There are other exceptional categories: religions, for example. Some might argue that religions are primarily business concerns, and yet we have articles for over 9000 churches in the US alone, many of which can and will only ever be permastubs. --Theredproject (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Art is not fungible

Art is not fungible. It is not like lettuce, shoe-shine polish or razor blades. Each work of art by any artist is different from the next. And each artist is different from the next. Sherrie Levine can make a perfect copy of another artist's work, and that second work can have an entirely different meaning from the first.

So making an argument by comparing an art gallery to a grocery store simply doesn't work. The commodities being sold have fundamentally different metaphysical and economic properties. --Theredproject (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really, as many types of shops sell hand made items, each (in their own way) unique (indeed no two lettuce are exactly the same, even none organic ones). A shop (even one that sells unique hand made items) must be notable in its own right, like any craft jewellery store.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Special Pleading" and Permastubs are empty arguments

Even if this were Special Pleading (which I don't think it is), as @ThatMontrealIP: said, we're not so hard and fast all the time. We have enshrined this in special rules for many things, for example:

• Baseball and every other sport.
• Musical albums that don't even exist yet
• And until last month, for Pornstars

Permastubs exist across the encyclopedia, with far poorer sourcing than these articles. Take for example Category:Baseball biography stubs. Here are three randomly selected articles for your consideration:

• Bruno Hirata
• Alessio Angelucci
• Chang Chih-hao

In comparison, it becomes clear to me that these Gallery articles that you are worried are going to become stubs, are in fact already Start class articles. --Theredproject (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• We don't have special rules. We have subject-specific notability guidelines that say if a subject has earned a certain type of merit, then we presume they are sufficiently notability to have a standalone article, but that presumption is that at the end of the day after a thorough sweep of sourcing (per WP:BEFORE) that no sufficient independent, in-depth, secondary sourcing can emerge, then we were wrong and we will delete that article. We are not carving out an exemption from notability for them, just that we know that if certain conditions are met, a full article can usually be developed. --Masem (t) 14:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering Curators, and the IRL disconnect

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: mentioned curators, and I think that including that consideration here helps articulate the problem I am trying to describe. IRL the significance of curators and galleries are judged based on:

1. The significance of the artists they have worked with
2. The reviews their shows have received

The problem here is that the interpretation of NCORP and NOTINHEIRITED excludes these very measures of significance: the notability of the artists they have worked with, and the reviews of the exhibitions they have made.

It may be helpful to look at this from another angle: in the tenure and promotion process at a university, a candidate is judged by the quality of their research. For a scholar this is some measure of their impact (via the quality of the journals they publish in, the reviews their books have received, how often they are cited, etc). For an artist this is a combination of the venues they have exhibited in, and the reviews their work has received. For a curator, it is a hybrid: a combination of their scholarship (as many/most curators write essays, which often live in catalogs for their shows), the quality of artists they are working with, and the reviews their exhibitions have received. Wikipedia’s guidelines for scholars, and artists are more or less in line with IRL standards, but contradict the standards for curators / gallerists. --Theredproject (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"The problem here is that the interpretation of NCORP and NOTINHEIRITED excludes these very measures of significance: the notability of the artists they have worked with, and the reviews of the exhibitions they have made." I don't think NOTINHEIRITED is relevant. I don't think we want to make NOTINHEIRITED applicable to art galleries. As concerns notability guidelines for art galleries it shouldn't matter an iota that an artist associated with the gallery has an article on Wikipedia. Yes, we want to be concerned with "reviews of the exhibitions they have made" but no, we should not be concerned with the stature of the artists associated with the gallery at all. The reviews of the exhibitions are an intellectual concern, whereas the presence of a well-known artist is merely appeal to name-recognition. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTINHERITED is 100% relevant, as we have never made any exemption for it for any other area, and the special pleading here for art galleries is getting tiring. A piece of art only temporarily resides in an art gallery, so its not even going to have some long-term connection to it. --Masem (t) 14:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"A piece of art only temporarily resides in an art gallery, so its not even going to have some long-term connection to it." By that reasoning we should not have a Mike the Headless Chicken article because Mike's head only temporarily resided with Mike. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—I am agreeing with you that the notability of artists associated with a gallery should not tend to confer notability on the art gallery. But reviews of art exhibitions should tend to confer notability on art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless the review is specifically talking about elements of the gallery, NOT#INHERITED applies. --Masem (t) 15:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—what are "elements of the gallery"? Please provide a few examples. Bear in mind that notability criteria are not the raison d'être of the project. It is not "special pleading" to adjust criteria in some areas if that is what's called for. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I would figure things like the building, the means the exhibits are presented, the staff/curators, the process by which the art was selected. Anyting not specifically about the art or artists that is "reviewed", not just named dropped. And even then that's a start, its got to be in-depth. A single line that went "The works were on display in nice soft tones selected by (gallery)." would not be sufficient. --Masem (t) 18:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are unrealistic expectations for art galleries and that explains why art galleries fail to meet notability guidelines. The building is often unimportant. What does "the means the exhibits are presented" mean? An art gallery is known for its exhibitions and its art. And you said above "A piece of art only temporarily resides in an art gallery, so its not even going to have some long-term connection to it." That temporary residence in the art gallery matters if the piece of art under consideration has never been displayed in any art gallery before. The owners or directors chose to display artwork with no track record of sales or popularity with any segment of the public. The artist may never have had gallery representation before. You are minimizing the role of the gallery and its staff. In my opinion galleries showing the work of unknown artists are exceptionally important and we should adjust our notability guidelines to capture these galleries in Wikipedia's pages. We have articles like Mike the Headless Chicken but we have AfDs for art galleries like Foxy Production. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability requires, at the end of the day, sources that talk directly about the gallery - not the art it promoted, but the gallery itself. Period. Same for any other topic. You're asking for all these touchy-feelly connections via artwork or artists, but that doesn't talk about the gallery, period. (In the case of the chicken there are several sources that talk directly about it, hence why notable). And because galleries are business entities, we need much stronger independent sourcing to avoid promotion and COI. We're not carving out exemptions here. --Masem (t) 13:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Notability requires, at the end of the day, sources that talk directly about the gallery - not the art it promoted". And that is where you are incorrect. Notability criteria are not the raison d'être of Wikipedia. We should not blindly follow guidelines that are destructive. Galleries showing contemporary art tend not to be written about. Hence there is a paucity of sources. The focus of sourcing relating to galleries showing contemporary art is on artwork. Such sourcing on artwork and artists can help to establish notability for galleries showing contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yes they are. Notability serves to prevent WP from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. --Masem (t) 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—notability criteria are not the raison d'être of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The film a film if filmed on is not notable, the paper or ink used to produce a book are not notable. Notability stems from being noted a shop (irrespective of what it sells) may well become notable due to catering for specific tastes or being highly regarded as a purveyor of quality goods. As to unknown artists, we are not here to promote the work of the unknown, but to report the work of the known. Again I have to say, if RS do not care, neither should we, there are websites for promoting stuff, use those..Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"As to unknown artists, we are not here to promote the work of the unknown". That is entirely correct. I could not agree with you more. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with NOTINHERITED

I think there may a problem with the use of WP:NOTINHERITED in AfDs. First off al, NOTINHERITED is not a guideline or policy, but an essay that aims to clarify which arguments to avoid in AfDs.

When applied to art galleries, NOTINHERITED means that one should not use the argument that the subject (gallery) is notable because: (roughly following the examples given in the essay)

• The subject once worked with a notbale subject
• The subject is a creation of a notable subject
• The subject shares a navbox with notable subjects
• The subject is a part of a notable subject
• The subject is a relative of a notabale subject
• The subject is inherently notable

In a way, these all say the same thing; a subject is not notable because is it a member of a class that has notable members, and nothing is inherently notable.

The way this is applied to AfDs on art galleries is usually something along the lines of: the artists are notable but that doesn't make the gallery notable. I don't think that is a valid argument. Art galleries only receive significant coverage for what they do because of who they represent. Their purpose is to represent their artists. It is what they are known for. The relationship with their artists is essential, not incidental. 291 is notable because Edward Steichen, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Gertrude Käsebier and Clarence H. White all gained critical recognition through exhibitions at 291. The Art of This Century gallery is notable for giving Jackson Pollock his first solo show. Julien Levy is notable for introducing Henri Cartier-Bresson to the U.S. and Man Ray's first major show. To apply NOTINHERITED to these galleries and claim that the notability of their artists does not matter is mistaken. Of course it matters; these galleries were instrumental in making their artists notable. There have been objections to this claim of instrumentality (although I don't remember exactly where) that artists dind't need their galleries to become notable. For example: Picasso would have become famous no matter who represented him. But that hypothetical doesn't make any difference to the historical fact that Picasso became well-known, due to Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler's efforts, so Kahnweiler is notable for promoting Picasso, regardless of whether Picasso might not have needed him. Kahnweiler doesn't "inherit" notability from Picasso, but the nature of the relationship between the two (and the fact that it is well-documented and verifiable) makes Kahnweiler notable. The same principle applies to many of the galleries that operate on the primary market. NOTINHERITED possibly applies to the secondary market, but not to the types of galleries under discussion. Vexations (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, Sounds like you've been reading this :). Adam9007 (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you not mean "a type of gallery", as the National gallery or the Tate do not belong to any one artist?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The National Gallery and the Tate are museums that show art to the public but do not sell it. We are talking here about a different kind of gallery, commercial establishments that sell art. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And non-commercial galleries that exhibit art.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I get that, it was kind of my point. A shop (and lets call it what it is) is not notable unless it (and not who owns it, or for what it sells) is notable. Just because my local corner shop is owned by the Arga Kahn, or sells a brand of product by Donnie Trump does not make it notable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Vexations makes excellent points. But the core problem here is that galleries do not typically receive significant coverage; the artists who show in them do. (If they did have SIGCOV, we would not be having this discussion.) Vexations points out that it's not the one-way, downward relationship that we often think of in WP:NOTINHERITED, with the SIGCOV artists on the top of the ladder inferring notability on the galleries below being unacceptable. But: the artists are on top and covered because the galleries put them there; I agree with recognizing that effort. The problem is how do we do it without sources? It's a logical inference, more or less, and requires us to assume notability in the absence of sources directly related to the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So the problem is that the galleries are not notable enough to get noticed, the work they exhibit is. QED, they are not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Their work is noticed and covered all the time, but obliquely. The coverage would not exist without the gallery's large efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for art galleries should not have anything to do with the status of artists associated with them. Notability for even the smallest, scrappiest, most newly-formed art galleries, should flow primarily from intellectual value, which in turn is either found or not found in the reviews of art exhibitions held at the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is going anywhere, as almost every comment I read is arguing against someone else's comment. There's clearly no movement towards consensus here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we are getting somewhere. The primary question is whether or not we feel we should have articles on art galleries in their nascent stages. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We should not. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, that is not at all the question that Mandiberg asked. He asked "Do we need to establish a clear guidance re the interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED for galleries, or do we need a separate set of rules for Galleries"?

My answer to that was that we need better guidance regarding NOTINHERITED. I don't think a SNG for art galleries is feasible at the moment because there is no consensus that I can discern. Consensus needs to develop in the deletion discussions, where we need to articulate our concerns better.

The answer to a generalized form of your question: "should Wikipedia have articles on organizations in their nascent stages" is unequivocally: No, absolutely not. We're an encyclopedia. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the status of artists should contribute to the notability of art galleries. Therefore I actually support a traditional view of WP:INHERIT in regard to art galleries. To my way of thinking notability for art galleries should be based on the intellectual content as might be found in reviews of art exhibitions held at a gallery. The most important thing about an art gallery is the type of work it shows. Reviews of shows take an intellectual approach. They don't talk about the gallery. That is why we have this problem. A reviewer of a show at a nascent gallery is trying to get a grip on a gallery's mission. The reviewer is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for. That sort of substance can be put into our article on that gallery and I would say that is the most important information that can be found in an article on such an art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I think you and I have been here before (frankly, I gave up trying to reason with you), but just what are you going to write? Here's a recent review of Olga Chernysheva's show at Foxy Production: https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/201901/olga-chernysheva-78028 Go ahead, tell us what Michael Wilson is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for. Vexations (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not registered with Artforum. I can't easily access the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, yes you can, via this link: http://www.foxyproduction.com/artists/456/text The gallery helpfully provides a copy of the article as a pdf, available from http://assets-p.artcat.com/file_uploads/file_asset/asset/06da1f29d602aa731126e86cb11b5c7dbdef8dca/0bcf794ad113f3ea64daebd43f89c60f.pdf Vexations (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Vexations—I essentially have no clearly defined criteria for the notability of art galleries. It is my belief that any ongoing concern in this capacity—art promotion—is worthy of our consideration. I don't think there is any question whatsoever that Foxy Production warrants an article. In my opinion it does not matter whether there are sources on the gallery or not. It is an art gallery that has been actively functioning in NYC for many years. People seem to think that the raison d'être of Wikipedia are its notability guidelines. There is nothing wrong with applying predetermined criteria to borderline cases. But in my opinion AfDs on art galleries are more like cat and mouse games. An art gallery is an important institution, at least potentially. The more-bourgeois art galleries matter less than the more-avant-garde galleries. What I have termed the bourgeois galleries are akin to shops selling shoe-polish and razor blades. I accept that criticism. But when a gallery is pushing taste, it should be of interest to us. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Way too subjective, one mans obje d'taste is another mans "that's Picasso's heavy period sir". What is of interest to us is what is of interest to RS, and nothing else. We are not here to set trends (or enforce them) but to report them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"We are not here to set trends (or enforce them) but to report them." That is correct. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But a gallery trying to set a trend or enforce a state is not being reported following a trend, it is setting one. It only becomes a trend when other people take interest (in this case RS reporting on them).Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Trends are not enforced in places like NYC in 2019. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

NYC is a tiny part of the world compared to the audience we have. --Masem (t) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So therefore we should delete articles on galleries known to be located in NYC in 2019? Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but we're not going to include a topic like an art gallery that is only being covered by the pulse of the NYC art world, just because people within that circle think its important. Show us sources that show it important. Even a NYTimes piece directly about an art gallery would be fine. --Masem (t) 15:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a recipe for poor coverage of galleries of contemporary art in NYC. And that is why we are here discussing this. The reason we are discussing this is because AfDs on such establishments, regardless of the city, are being deleted despite the fact that it is easy to recognize them as "notable" establishments. We don't, in all cases, need notability requirements to determine notability. Notability requirements are not the raison d'être of Wikipedia. Foxy Production is notable. Yet we are having an AfD on it. And it is not because of the artists it shows. It is notable because it has been located in several locations in NYC since 2003. Tenaciousness is indicated by its ability to withstand the high costs of operating in NYC. There have been many artists associated with that gallery. It doesn't matter what their individual names are. We know, without any sources, that this is a functioning gallery of contemporary art, functioning in an important city for art, over a long period of time. It wouldn't matter one iota if there was or was not a "NYTimes piece" about it. We are capable of evaluating an establishment such as "Foxy Production". Those who think it should be deleted should try to express in their own words, without recourse to notability guidelines, why they think we should not have an article on this establishment. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, you're just never going to put your money where you mouth is, are you? You make outrageous claims, like The reviewer is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for. That sort of substance can be put into our article on that gallery and I would say that is the most important information that can be found in an article on such an art gallery. conveniently hide behind lack of access and then just talk and talk and talk, but you never, ever, demonstrate that you know how to do that. As far as I'm concerned, you have lost all credibility. Vexations (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Vexations—it is not all reviews of art exhibitions in which we find material constructive of an article on an art gallery. You pointed to one source and you said in essence tell me how this review of this art exhibition could be constructive to writing an article about the gallery at which it was found. Well maybe it could not be constructive. I am not saying in all instances every review of an art show is also constructive of writing an article on a gallery. The question is: how can we save more articles on art galleries from deletion? Isn't that the question? If I'm following your reasoning, this would be predicated on the notion that the notability of artists associated with the gallery can lend notability to the gallery. And other editors argue that is an instance of "inheritance", something entirely frowned upon. I don't oppose the use of "inheritance" in this instance but I find it a problematic solution. I don't think it is necessary to point to high-status artists to argue that a gallery is notable. I favor a combination of sourcing techniques—traditional sources about the establishment and reviews of art exhibitions. But again—not all reviews of art exhibitions lend themselves to this purpose. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, If you can't substantiate the claims you've made, it's not because I made it hard for you. It's because it can't be done. You could have used all the reviews for Foxy Production or whatever other gallery, I don't care. I just wanted to see some evidence for you claim. You could have used an existing example. You don't have it. You cannot get what a "reviewer is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for" unless they explicitly say so. Inferring it yourself is WP:OR and completely acceptable. As for my view on NOTINHERITED, I think I was pretty clear, but I'll try one more time. I means that a gallery that calls itself "Leonardo Galleries" is not notable because it took its name from someone who is. It does not mean that Ambroise Vollard is not notable, because he promoted Cézanne, Picasso and van Gogh. I am absolutely not advocating for use of inheritance as a means of establishing notability. I am advocating for a better understanding of what notinherited means and when it should not be used in AfDs. Vexations (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"You cannot get what a 'reviewer is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for' unless they explicitly say so." This is entirely correct. I could not agree with you more. "Inferring it yourself is WP:OR and completely acceptable." I completely agree. I am not at all suggesting that we draw conclusions about a gallery's predilections in art based on reviews of art exhibitions unless explicitly stated. I realize you are asking me to provide an example of a review of an art show explicitly addressing the predilections a gallery may have in the sort of art it tends to show. I am about to embark on a search for such an instance. I so far have not done so because I just know that it is true. I have read reviews of art shows in which the writer explicitly passes commentary on the gallery itself. A reviewer of an art show can say, and this is entirely fictitious, "consistent with ABC Art Gallery's preoccupation with Neo-pop, this show is a tired rehashing of signs and symbols derived from Western popular culture". Could we then write that "ABC Art Gallery has shown work that could fall into the category of Neo-pop"? Generally such a reference is not enough to write an article. But in combination with other sources it could be. The bottom line is that entirely-acceptable articles on galleries of contemporary art get deleted. Yet Mike The Headless Chicken lives on. All this bickering aside, I think we are trying to devise standards for notability specifically for articles on galleries showing contemporary art. I don't think you should be dragging us to Vollard and Cézanne and Picasso and van Gogh. Contemporary art is provocative in contemporary times and it is perfectly understandable that editors are skeptical of galleries that can be seen as promoting a hoax. This is a real and natural feeling and I feel it myself. Nevertheless these establishments warrant articles. Reliable sources are not likely to write about the mundane when within the same field of vision is found the glittering. The works of art completely eclipse the four walls of the gallery. That is why we tend to have few reliable sources on galleries themselves, and that in turn is why we are trying to devise new guidelines for articles on galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A phrase in WP:N to stress is "significant coverage". I can fully believe that a review of a exhibition or piece of art may include a statement that briefly mentions the gallery. But that is not significant coverage. The article doesn't have to be wholly about the gallery, but needs more than a name drop. --Masem (t) 14:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly... if, while reviewing an artist, a source also discusses the gallery... then that source goes to establish that the gallery is notable. That isn’t an INHERENTANCE situation, since the source covers both artist and gallery. The key is that it must be more than a passing mention. This is all well within the criteria of WP:ORG... I still do not see a need for an SNG. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As concerns WP:INHERIT, we typically see "ABC Art Gallery is notable because it shows Artist A, Artist B, and artist C, all three of whom have articles on Wikipedia." I look askance at this reasoning, even if I am arguing to prevent the article from getting deleted. I find much more compelling and logical an argument that the gallery warrants an article because it has existed for 3 years, has mounted a hundred art exhibitions, has dozens of artists on its roster, and maintains a booth at the annual Art Bash Miami, or any other city. The success of the artists is not what we are writing about. We are writing about the existence of an art gallery that seems to be firmly entrenched at the gallery-level in the contemporary art market. Artists make art and some artists attain success. We are discussing, in contemporaneous times, how a visual artist goes from studio to museum. They typically pass through a "gallery-level" of that contemporary art market. So, we are interested in that "gallery-level". That should be our primary focus of interest. I find the focus on the artists that happen to have Wikipedia articles to be a side-show and a distraction from what we should primarily be evaluating—an institution functioning at the gallery-level of the contemporary art market. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes... But... mere existence is not notable. You are saying that factors X and Y are important, but we still need source coverage to establish that a specific gallery actually meets factors X and Y. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to speak for the visual arts project but I think that the fact that history has shown it is the artists and art they produce, rather than the place that art is presented, is absolutely the right way of thinking in terms of what is more important for long-term purposes. Leonard da Vinci is still well remembered but what about where his work was displayed before modern times? --Masem (t) 17:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"it is the artists and art they produce, rather than the place that art is presented" This is probably incorrect, Masem, as has already been pointed out by Theredproject: "As Arthur Danto has argued, these galleries produce the context that makes an object into a work of art. The review of the art in the gallery, is a review of the gallery also" and "as I noted above, Arthur Danto has discussed the role of art galleries in creating culture." Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what one peson has said. What about the rest of the art world? --Masem (t) 19:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is just what Arthur Danto has said. I think it is what one deduces from contemporary art. I think it is obvious. If in a corner of a room in a museum of contemporary art we find a pile of candy, is the museum not a participant in making the art? Consider this image. That setting happens to be a museum, but museums and galleries are similar. The surroundings lend importance to the piece. It is regarded as art, in part, because the setting places the identity of "art" on what would otherwise be an inexplicably out-of-place pile of candy. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all subjective. You also need to ask, to what degree is the choice of placement up to the gallery and up to the artist? I have a hard time accepting that how art is displayed never includes how the artist believes it should be, and that makes it difficult to determine the autonomity that the gallery has. --Masem (t) 22:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—the same situation occurs no matter where in the room the candy is displayed. Would it make a difference if it were in the middle of the room? Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We are really getting into the weeds here. If notability could really be achieved by scattering candy in the corner of a room (according to the possibly-vague instructions of an installation artist) then anyone who has ever painted by numbers or made a flower arrangement would be notable, because they're doing something equally creative. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein—we aren't discussing notability for artists. We are discussing notability for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. Bus stop was claiming, among other outlandish things, that galleries should be considered notable because they make a creative contribution to an artwork by following an artist's instruction to scatter candy in the corner of a room. That instruction may well have a strong artistic purpose, documented in reviews, etc, that causes the artist to be notable as an artist; I am not disputing that. But I don't see how following the artist's instruction is itself a creative contribution, of a sufficient level of significance that we should consider the gallery to inherit the notability from those same reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Bus stop was claiming, among other outlandish things, that galleries should be considered notable because they make a creative contribution to an artwork..." I made no claim even remotely like that. Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein, Of course not. It doesn't follow that anyone who has ever done something remotely creative is notable because someone else who is supposedly notable also did something remotely creative.

Félix González-Torres is notable, as is the museum that exhibited the work, the Art Institute of Chicago, and possibly the Donna and Howard Stone Collection, which really is quite interesting.

But even so, the installer is not notable for installing the work, nor is anyone who follows the " possibly-vague instructions". The authorship and the authentication of the work, and the moral rights of the artist rest with González-Torres. Unless González-Torres says that a pile of candy is "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.), it is just a pile of candy, and not his work. Yes, context matters, and we need not worry that anyone who has ever painted by numbers would all of a sudden become notable if we accepted that some art galleries can be notable for the work that they're doing. Vexations (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem, funny you should ask, since it's generally accepted that Danto coined the term "art world". But, to answer your question, yes, that's actually a really mainstream view (in the art world). Vexations (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take your word that it was a mainstream view but that still means touchy-feeley connections that cannot be sourced give rise to notability. I go back to the comparison to agents for actors and musicans - we know these agents often are part of why an actor becomes successful, but they are the "invisible partner" in that, rarely discussed in mainstream unless there's a major story behind it. Galleries seem to be the same way. --Masem (t) 00:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

This is all rather irrelevant, it does not matter what a review is trying to do, if it is not a review of the gallery then it does not establish the gallery is all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to say, in the most civil way that I can: it is very frustrating that those of you who clearly do not have significant subject area expertise, refuse to listen to those on this thread who do. This is a large reason why this conversation is going nowhere.

The fact that you refer back to Leonardo shows just how little you know about the topic. The place where his, Michelangelo, and Van Eyck's art was displayed are quite notable... take for example St Bavo's Cathedral, Ghent, Sistine Chapel, Basilica of San Domenico, Florence Cathedral, Siena Cathedral, just to pick out the obvious ones. This is Art History 101: art was produced on commission by the church and the ultra wealthy patrons (often for the church) until the reformation and the rise of the Dutch mercantile empire. Only with Vermeer/Rembrandt et al do we have paintings made ‘on spec’ and thus, for sale at all. The art gallery as we know it doesn’t come into form until the 19th century.

As I said, (and Vexations has underscored) Arthur Danto is central amongst many who have discussed the changes in the political economy of art production and art markets. Danto and Brian O'Doherty have defined the role of the gallery and specifically of the White cube gallery. Calling him "one person" and asking "What about the rest of the art world?" is specious.

If you actually want to have an argument that doesn't just devolve into WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT please at least do your research, or listen to the expertise of those that have it. I doubt you would be doing this about a Biolistic Particle Delivery System or Stereotactic surgery.

• @Masem:, I wouldn't do it on an article about video games, on which you clearly know more than me.
• @Slatersteven: I wouldn't doubt your knowledge of Star Trek or Dr Who.
• @David Eppstein: I certainly would defer to you on the uses of a Minimum spanning tree.

Why are you doing this here? --Theredproject (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Subject-area expertise is a necessary quality in authors of sources, and a useful quality in editors of articles. I'm not convinced that in this case it's a helpful quality in making policy. Or, more precisely, it would also be a helpful quality if we were to agree that a subject-specific notability guideline were a good idea. But convincing us that it's a good idea requires more than "I'm an expert so I know best". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Subject matter experience can help to write articles, but at the end of the day, it is still about appropriate sourcing. No sources, no article. Core WP:V policy. If you can regularly show good sourcing for galleries, then we can start discussing using expert knowledge in the field to possibly determine gallery notability guidelines, but until then, they fall under NCORP and require certain sourcing requirements. --Masem (t) 02:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The raison d'être of this project is not our notability guidelines. The nature of a gallery of contemporary art is such that it does not tend to have sources. It of course has to have some sources or we couldn't possibly write an article about it. But it is going to have a paucity of sources relative to other sorts of articles. The bottom line is this should be no big deal. We should be discussing which sorts of galleries of contemporary art should have articles and which sort should not. The problem here as I see it is that we are not having that discussion. I think that a gallery that has been in business for at least 3 years with continuous exhibitions all that time with many artists on its roster is worthy of consideration if there are also some sources supporting its existence and its activities. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But that has to be backed up by independent third-party , secondary sources, not only for notability sake, but to avoid the promotion concerns of NCORP. And yes, notability is not the reason WP exists, but NCORP absolutely does exist to prevent WP from being a promotional tool; the whole rewrite of NCORP was to strengthen notability for corporate entities (of which art galleries are) because of endless attempts to use WP for advertising and promotion. And here's the essence of the issue. Your idea of "3 years with continuous exhibits and a notable roster of articles" are all aspects I would see to promote the gallery, not tell me why the gallery is important. We need information about the later that can be sourced. --Masem (t) 05:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say "Your idea of '3 years with continuous exhibits and a notable roster of articles' are all aspects I would see to promote the gallery..." Bus stop (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all language that I think would be key in any type of advertizing or promotion of the gallery as to help draw or convince artists to use them, but not to establish the gallery's importance. --Masem (t) 14:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

because I do not need to know about a subject to say "but it still must obey our polices". I do not use my (alleged) expertise in the Doctor or star Trek, so fail to see why why get the pull that card either. I do not need to be an expert to ask "what do RS say", and if the answer is "well the problem is they do not really cover it" I do not need to be an expert to say "well policy says X, so X is what WE do". What the experts do is irrelevant, they have their own magazines to get expert all over.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not something for which subject matter expertise is required. The question is "Do we have enough sources about the subject (itself, not something related to it) to write a reasonably thorough article on it?". If the answer for most art galleries is "no", then we should not have an article on most art galleries. If a notable artist displayed work there, and that was mentioned in passing in sources about the artist or art, we could always mention that in that article instead, but we should only have an article about the gallery if there are sufficient sources about it in and of itself, just as with every subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"This is not something for which subject matter expertise is required." "Interest" may be a better word than "expertise". Those of us "interested" in the subject area have posited a possible inextricable link between galleries and art. Others, perhaps with less interest in the subject-area, have expressed their doubts that this could be so. Of course it is their prerogative to doubt that galleries and art could be interdependent. Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

OK I am getting a bit confused now. Who is arguing for what?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If you didn't argue this, Slatersteven, I stand corrected and I should not have made generalizations about any group of editors as obviously each of us are individuals. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No I did not, in fact I would argue I have been arguing just the opposite, that the link (in terms of publicity) is too close for independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You say "the link (in terms of publicity) is too close for independent notability". What does that mean? Can you expand on that? Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The publicity these galleries get is due to what they host, not their own notability. With out them hosting the latest art by world renowned "artist" Bert Terrible no RS would even notice them. The argument is not that there is no link, but that the link is the only notability they have.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the publicity these galleries get is not due to what they host. It is due to what they have chosen to host. Did they pass up the opportunity to show the work of Bert Terrible? Other galleries would not get the publicity if they had the opportunity to show the work of Bert Terrible but declined the opportunity. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I answered your question, what did I mean.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You are failing to grasp that galleries are successful for their own reasons. Their success is not attributable to the artists as you have contended. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to reply to this anymore, I answered you question because you misunderstood my point, I see no point in continuing this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I understood your point. And I was responding to it. You said The publicity these galleries get is due to what they host, not their own notability. With out them hosting the latest art by world renowned "artist" Bert Terrible no RS would even notice them. But I think that is incorrect, as can be seen by considering that the artist could have approached other galleries before approaching the gallery that decided to take a chance on showing their work. The gallery is not an uninvolved participant. Rather the gallery is an active participant in perceiving value and placing a bet, so to speak, on what may be an unknown entity, in the form of an artist that at that point was unrecognized for artistic abilities. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we are all agreed that, for a gallery to be deemed notable, there needs to be coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the gallery. The actual dispute is about what specifically those sources need to cover. Are reviews of the exhibits hosted by the gallery enough, or do the source have to discuss the gallery as an art venue? This is where we get into the INHERITANCE weeds. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We should relax the notability criteria for commercial galleries

Yes

No

Neither of the above. We should apply the (nonexistent) "notability criteria for commercial galleries". Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this involve relaxing the criteria, what is it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

can we have a concrete proposal, we are just going round in circles, but on different tracks now. This is going nowhere, slowly, lets conclude it now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Does this involve relaxing the criteria" I don't know. Two different types of sources are involved—sources on the gallery itself and sources that are reviews of art expositions held at the gallery. And not atypically we could mention other criteria to be taken into consideration that are specific to galleries of modern art. I've suggested a minimum number of years in operation with a solid track record of exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)#

• No. WP:ORG is sufficient. See my comment in the next section. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• No Having been following the arguments above, I see no reason art galleries should have relaxed criteria. Many are small local businesses that show and sell art, and being associated with notable artists does not automatically make the galleries notable, and the idea below that simply being old can establish notability is utterly risible. Multiple substantive independent sources should discuss the gallery itself to establish notability, not merely discuss the artists who show there. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• That's not really a question we can answer, unless you meant to ask "Should WP:NCORP be amended to specifically exempt commercial art galleries?
  If you want wrap up this discussion by putting it to a vote, it's disingenuous to put up a different question then was asked. The original question was "Do we need to establish a clear guidance re the interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED for galleries, or do we need a separate set of rules for Galleries?"
  There are currently no notability criteria for art institutions. There is only WP:NCORP. I don't see any consensus to overturn or revise it. There should be notability guideline for the visual arts that also covers exhibition spaces. WP:ARTIST is useless, and should be completely rewritten.
  The people here who have been advocating that some galleries can be notable are not unreasonable: Because of specific notability guidelines like WP:NTRACK, Oskar Ospelt, a sprinter and discus thrower from Liechtenstein who participated (but didn't win) in the 1936 Olympics, is considered notable, despite the fact that no sources exist except a sports database.
  It's OK to request that for the arts we can have something akin to "i f you participate at the global top level of your field, you are probably notable" too. We're just asking that the arts are treated equitably, and that wherever bias exists, we make a reasonable effort to eliminate it.
  We're obviously not ready to put forward a concrete proposal, but it's worth thinking about what kind of critical attention and analysis of an arts-related subject exists for galleries that is just as indicative of encyclopedic relevance as winning the Olympics is for athletes. After all, there was a time when the Olympic games were as much a religious and cultural event as a sports competition. Vexations (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • NSPORT was developed so that each criterion is a strong indicator that secondary source can be found in time; it is NOT an inclusion guideline as the question being asked here for art galleries. For Olympic athletes, there is reasonably sound logic that there is biographical coverage of that athlete in their home country or region within it. It likely will require searching documents in libraries than online searches, and maybe within the geographic reason of interest. We need the same type of thing for any allowance for art galleries. --Masem (t) 22:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    Masem, You're not suggesting, I hope, that for a sports-related article it is OK to assume that there may be sources that emerge in the future, even though no one presented evidence of such sources, but if it's about an art-related subject that same assumption does not hold? I'm frankly much less tolerant of such hypothetical sources. Provide evidence of the sources or DRAFTIFY the article until you find them and can comply with WP:V. As for treating arts and sports differently: No. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Vexations (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    That's exactly how the bulk of subject-specific notability guidelines work. If a topic meets a criterion (which still must past simple WP:V validation that the criterion is met), we presume that the topic is notable and allow a stand alone article. That's still a presumption, but you have to show that the presumption was false - that searching for sources where they would be expected to be found and getting no hits would be a case where deletion becomes an option. Those criterion are determined by consensus, and they are based on the idea that sourcing can be found or likely will come about due to meeting that criterion. In the caee of NSPORT, I would say that when they have been challenged to find sources for a topic that meets the criterion but not the GNG-type of secondary sourcing, they are able to pull that sourced given the time. NSPORT is not based on making exemptions for what editors feel is important. It is still sourcing driven. --Masem (t) 23:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    Masem, well, then in that case, I'd like to propose that we develop a notability guideline for art that says that if an article on an art gallery meets a criterion and satisfies WP:V, we presume that the topic is notable and allow a stand alone article. Anyone nominating such an article for deletion would then be required to show that the presumption was false (by doing an exhaustive search of Artforum's archives, for example). Assuming that I can find consensus for such a criterion, would you agree to that? Vexations (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    The criteria suggested must be shown by extensive demonstration that, for at least 90% (or potentially higher) of the cases that given an art gallery meets a criterion, then significant coverage in secondary sources can be found with some work to bring the article up to the GNG level of notability. But again, NCORP is going to remain a driving force too, so we have to avoid criteria that are effectively promotional. --Masem (t) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    Masem, Ok, so if I can specify a non-promotional criterion where I can demonstrate, for 90% of the cases of the galleries that meet that criterion, that significant coverage can be found or that those galleries already meet the GNG, then you're going to support that? Vexations (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    It's going to depend how well you support it. Also, that would need a community RFC to create or add to an existing notability guideline. --Masem (t) 00:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    Masem, I have a criterion, and a list of exactly 54 galleries that verifiably meet it. Of those, 36 already have articles and have not been challenged or have survived AfD. 18 galleries currently don't have articles, 2 of those have been deleted via AfD. I can write articles on the remaining 16. If they survive AfD on the ground that the GNG is met, the percentage will be 96.296296296296%. Of course, at that point I don't need the criterion anymore because they all meet the GNG already, and there are no more galleries that meet that criterion. I can exceed 90%, by writing 13 articles, which would bring my score to 90.740740740741% That leaves 3 galleries that don't have articles yet that would be covered by the new guideline. Would you accept that? Vexations (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    It's not going to be my decision, you still need that community RFC. You should prepare a separate page to document those cases and their fates so that it clear that your proposed idea justifies articles. I can't guarantee the community will accept that, but that's how you want to start this. --Masem (t) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    Masem, thanks for providing clarification on the purpose and development of subject-specific notability guidelines. I have no issues with any of this, and I am confident that I can provide the data that can inform an RFC on a subject-specifc notabilty guideline for the visual arts. I'll follow the guidance provided at Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance, develop a proposal and submit it to WP:WPVA for further discussion before an RfC. My proposal is at User:Vexations/NVISART Vexations (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This was not an attempt to rap it up, as I said it was an attempt to find out what was actually being proposed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• No WP:NORG is working properly here. I see no reason to make changes per my comments elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• No No reason to. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• No: I haven't seen a single credible or compelling argument for that art galleries are so important that WP's notability guidelines should be waived in their favor. Ravenswing 02:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, we have (in theory or practice) "relaxed" notability guidelines before (athletes, professors, and "populated places" being a few). The result every single time is the same: A bunch of junk permastubs. We write articles from sources, so there must be enough source material to write a complete article. Verification of existence, or even importance, isn't sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

I think the problem is with the understanding of WP:NOTINHEIRITED, and the role of galleries in the production and contextualization of art that produces its cultural meaning and value, and thus give rise to the conditions that create what we call Notability. I also fundamentally disagree with the presence of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments by editors and admins who have zero subject area expertise, and do not understand any of the subtleties of the matter.--Theredproject (talk)

number of years in operation with a solid track record of exhibitions can establish notability

Yes

No

There are no "notability criteria for commercial galleries". We could devise criteria and guidelines specifically applicable to galleries of contemporary art. I am saying "galleries of contemporary art" because that is where the problem lies. We are not just talking about "number of years in operation with a solid track record of exhibitions" but also sources on the gallery and also sources on exhibitions that have been held at the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I am trying to get some kind of resolution by getting some idea of what people want. can we now get an admin to close this as no consensus, it is not going anywhere, and from the looks of it will not ever go anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have specific "notability criteria for commercial galleries", especially galleries handling contemporary art? These are problems arising specifically in relation to articles on galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No. As that can mean anything, it is not a proposal, it is a title. I do not sigh blank cheques.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The question is simple. Do you feel guidelines specific to articles on contemporary art galleries would be a good idea? Or should the requirements concerning contemporary art galleries be subsumed into requirements applying to a wider group of commercial entities? Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have given my answer, and explained why. I do not see why we need them, so vote no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - while age and “track record” might indicate that a gallery is likely to be notable, both are only a potential. We still need reliable sources that are independent of the gallery to notice and comment upon the age and/or track record (or any other criteria you might suggest). This is the line in the sand no matter the topic. Sourcing is what divides likelihood from actuality. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• And I've said we additionally need sources on the gallery and sources on the exhibitions held at the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Half right... If there are sources discussing the gallery, then we can deem the gallery notable. However, if the sources only discuss the exhibit, they are not enough to deem the gallery notable. We can say that the exhibit is notable, but NOT the gallery. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"If there are sources discussing the gallery, then we can deem the gallery notable." There are always sources discussing the gallery. Questions concern quality and quantity of sources discussing the gallery. I believe in all of these instances of AfDs of articles concerning galleries of contemporary art we have some sources discussing the gallery. But they tend to be scarce. And the argument is that numerous sources in the form of reviews of art shows held at the gallery have no capacity to confer any degree of notability on the art gallery. The typical reasoning advanced concerns WP:INHERIT—that the gallery does not "inherit" notability from the other two entities—namely the artists and the artworks. This reasoning is flawed. Concerning contemporary art, it is the gallery which has chosen to represent a relatively unknown artist or to show a body of work by an artist that represents a new direction for that artist's work. The difference between a contemporary art gallery and an art gallery handling works of art of proven value is the important role the gallery plays in recognizing value based only on intuition as opposed to past sales. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would think those of us disagreeing with you do appreciate the argument "an art gallery has some importance that comes from having artists they feature become famous/important/notable". There is something to be said that if a specific gallery were the ones that found and promoted several great artists that attention will be drawn to that studio. The problem with your argument though is that we as WP editors cannot make that leap of logic without reliable sourcing of any type of back that up - that's original research. You've talked about the general case of what the art world thinks the general relationship is between galleries, art, and artist, which is perfectly acceptable in talking the topic if art galleries in general, but when we get to a specific gallery, we need hard sourcing for that point. Not only because of the original research, but that we need to avoid potentially just being promotional in nature per NCORP and NOT.

The only other approach that would be possible here is to define a subject-specific criteria that, if a gallery meets it, will lead to GNG-type sourcing nearly all of the time. From what I'm seeing, just saying a gallery that has been open X years won't cut it. I don't think having X notable artists exhibited will do it either, without adding specific requirements for which type of artists (eg like artists that have sold more than $Y million in art). We need hard evidence that this would be a workable criteria, which again points to sources to demonstrate that.

End of the day, any suggestion affecting the notability of art galleries that does not involve sourcing to back that up will never be accepted by WP. --Masem (t) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• No Per Wikipedia policy, reliable independent secondary sourcing needs to exist to establish notability. SportingFlyer T·C 01:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• No Which the operative way of saying, "yes, a negligibly small amount". North8000 (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• No: Given the tenor of the arguments presented above, I've little faith that this would be anything more than a smokescreen to create articles on a horde of galleries that cannot now meet the GNG. Ravenswing 02:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Or artists who would now meet the criteria of "several notable galleries". Indeed we may even end up with classic circular reasoning, "gallery A is notable because it hosted the work of Artist B, Artist B is notable because his work was hosted by Gallery A"..Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been my contention all along that the presence of notable artists does not confer notability on galleries of contemporary art. I could not care less which notable artists are associated with a gallery. A gallery is not notable because it shows notable artists, in my opinion. It is notable if sources explicitly and implicitly recognize it and if we can determine to our satisfaction that it has been in operation for some minimum period of time (3 years?) regularly mounting art exhibitions. We should be taking a commonsense approach to evaluating the notability of galleries of contemporary art. We just had this AfD. For what reason? That is a gallery of contemporary art and it seems to have been in operation since 2003. And in many instances AfDs similar to that one result in deletion. This is weakening the project in this area and for no reason I'm aware of. It is immature to cover Mike The Headless Chicken but not a gallery of contemporary art in operation since 2003. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The result of that AFD was keep. As to immaturity, maybe it is, but that is not a problem with us, but with what become notable. As to "common sense", that is subjective and can be applied to many areas, just because it is "art" (who gets to determine what is art, why should as gallery that sells contemporary art be any more worthy then one that sells "old" art or prints or any of the other plethora of stuff to decorate your home? Or come to that comic shops, or book shops or RPG/gaming stores, or any of the other ways people express themselves through purchasing tat (or even cinemas)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Because the notability criteria are different for galleries of contemporary art than they are for the examples you've given. The raison d'être of our project are not its notability criteria. You are putting the cart before the horse. We should be devising notability criteria appropriate to a given category of articles. In my opinion that is why we are having this discussion. I think the question here concerns what criteria are most appropriate to assessing galleries of contemporary art for notability. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No they are not different, and they should not be. And yes the reason for the existence of the project is to be a repository of notable information, it is an encyclopedia, not a promotional catalog. No persons "culture" is better or inherently more notable then anyone elses. A shop that sells genuine Star Trek memorabilia has as much cultural value as one that sells plaster models of cows backsides painted blue (perhaps more so, it has had a far greater impact on culture).Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As to putting carts before horses, Mmmm. This would have the effect of making a lot of non notable artists notable by having an exhibition in a notable gallery.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"No persons "culture" is better or inherently more notable then anyone elses." Where have you seen any argument presented by anyone about the value of culture? I don't know who you are arguing against but I certainly have not presented any argument pertaining to the value of culture found in art galleries vis-à-vis the value of culture found elsewhere. My only concern is that we have notability criteria appropriate to a given type of entity. In my conceptualization of this thread the type of gallery quintessentially under discussion is the gallery of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

So then why should contemporary art galleries have a different set of criteria then any other type of gallery?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Because sources are less likely to explicitly address galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked why, not should, I asked for a reason why they are different.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that the comment I replied to has been altered, and with that I bow out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven—simply remove "I asked why, not should, I asked for a reason why they are different." I am sorry. I'm getting mixed up because we are responding and counter-responding in rapid-fire fashion. Just remove or alter anything extraneous. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Record producers and gallerists (and journals)

• I'm not saying this analogy to the gallery problem above is a perfect one, but it strikes me that the position of a record producer is similar to the position of a gallerist. Both arrange and produce the public presentation of a (usually more famous and wiki-notable) artist. The record producers are more behind the scenes than the artist, as in the case of the gallerist and the artists they exhibit. We have many record producers on Wikipedia: around 600 alone are listed under Category:Record producers from California (I can't wikilink this for some reason). Do we have anything to learn here from Music notability guidelines? I found this (long) discussion of basically the same issue above, but addressing producers. Many of the arguments made are the same as above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that discussion stresses the difference between the creative side of the music industry vs the functional side - which also applies to art. Creative people get much more attention, and while record producing does have creative aspects, it is far less recognized in sources compared to the musician or songwriter. Artists get much more attention that the galleries that try to help promote them. So begging this uniquely for art galleries seems the very wrong way to go about doing this. --Masem (t) 00:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, as you seem to agree it is a valid analogy and then say it isn't.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is, we determine the notability of an art gallery the same way as we determine the notability of a music producer, asteroid, company, dog, or anything else. We look how much reference material is available about it from reliable and independent sources and see if that's enough to write a complete article about it. If so, it's notable; if not, it isn't. There's nothing more to it than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have good ears, and the grey matter between them is pretty good, so I understand the not inherited-full-stop argument. However there do seem to be exceptions (specific notability guidelines?) in some parts of Wikipedia. The "guidance" from Notability (academic journals), for example: "If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article... Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Journals publish articles, and galleries publish art exhibitons. It's advice from an essay, sure, but it does seem to have some relevance. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a guideline. It is certainly not universally accepted. See its talk page archives for a lot of debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you think that the essay is being respected as an informal guideline? I can't help but notice that articles on journals like those listed below, with extremely spare RS coverage, are all over Wikipedia. Presumably because the subject expert editors in those areas recognize these journals as important, just as Bus stop, Vexations, Theredproject and I recognize certain galleries as important. I point these articles (most of which have very few or zero independent sources) out for obvious comparison to the art galleries issue: journals publish the work of others and are, like galleries, not inherently notable. If the "RS sources or deletion, full stop" really applies on Wiki, then these all need to be deleted:

• Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
• Physiology & Behavior
• Current Directions in Psychological Science
• Perspectives on Psychological Science
• Psychological Science
• Psychological Science in the Public Interest
• ChemBioChem
• Chemistry: A European Journal
• European Journal of Organic Chemistry
• Bulletin for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies
• Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy
• European Respiratory Journal
• European Journal of Criminology
• European Journal of Pain
• Patient Education and Counseling
• Public Personnel Management

I'm only listing a few here-- every single one I looked at had very few sources and certainly failed the independent coverage test.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:WAX. But also, one of the components of the significant debate I mentioned above is that these journals all do have significant sourcing about them, namely their inclusion in selective indexes (which generally tabulate aggregate information about the journal as a whole, not just about the papers in it). For instance the first one on your list (I didn't bother checking the rest, because I'm sure they're all the same) explicitly mentions six selective indexing services that include it, and another service (Journal Citation Reports) that is purely about publishing statistical reports on journals and not about individual papers at all. Does anything like this exist for the contemporary art world? A service that provides detailed information about top art galleries, listing aggregate information about their artists, shows, and sales, and whose inclusion criteria are selective and based on significance in the art world (rather than on willingness to pay to be included in the index)? I genuinely don't know, but if something like that exists then we could start talking about whether it should count towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that is an interesting thought. There are art dealer's associations, gallery guides and the like, but these are really primary or not published in reliable publications, or are just publications on their own. There are things like this gallery listing, but it is talking about shows in galleries. There's the American Association of Art Dealers.. but overall I would say no, there's no independent accreditation or indexing or quality appraisal service. At the same time, knowing academia, I am not sure that journal indexing services are as independent as they might appear. And, isn't indexing a journal's articles, just republishing material, and counting how many times a journal was cited just counting, and not significant coverage? Saying that counting or republishing counts as SIGCOV seems like a workaround to the requirement of multiple independent sources writing about a subject in-depth. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The indexing services may have certain biases (e.g. towards commercial publishers) but I don't know of any serious questions about their independence. Your point about whether they're in-depth enough is in part why this issue has been a subject of debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein, Actually, there are services that track the sales of artworks, and provide an index. I have occasionally cited artfacts.net for example. These kinds of services are subscription-based, expensive and mostly of use to professionals, but they exist. Vexations (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Subscription-based, expensive and mostly of use to professionals" also describes many of the journal indexes. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't buy the invocation of WP:WAX given that the examples above point to flaws in the arguments being presented here. Both in terms of 1) Independent 2) substantial 3) RS. And also in terms of the permastub argument. These journals are the stubbiest of permastubs. --Theredproject (talk)

"There's nothing more to it than that." Actually, there is, Seraphimblade. Art galleries create art, as concerns contemporary art. That is why reviews of art exhibitions at galleries of contemporary art are relevant to establishing notability. Such reviews are by no means the total story—there must also be some support in sources for the gallery separate from reviews of shows—but nor are the reviews of shows entirely irrelevant. You write above "This is not something for which subject matter expertise is required." But without some familiarity with galleries of contemporary art you might not know the role art galleries play in creating contemporary art. I gave an example. A pile of candy in a gallery of contemporary art is art. Art is shown in other places as well. Art hangs on the lobby walls of high-rise residential buildings. If you put a pile of candy in the lobby of a high-rise residential building—would it be art? It is the setting that makes it art, whether it be in a gallery or museum. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's tricky to try to draw a comparison, because the results of a record producer's labour is captured in the resulting sound recording through which most listeners will experience the sound in question. In cases of a non-permanent art installation, it's less clear if that installation will be inextricably bound to the public's impression of the piece. isaacl (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree they are analogous, a record producer produces records, a gallery does not produce works of at, it promotes them. A closer analogy would be record shops that act as record promoters for bands.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are we trying to make analogies, anyway? Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

So as to see if this is unique to art shops, or if it apl;lies to any other money making business. The issue of record shops that promote up and coming bands is very analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

But presumably you know what an "art shop" is so what do you hope to accomplish by comparing it to a "record shop"? Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Because they both sell a form of art, and sometimes host artists for purposes of promoting their work, you point out the difference there?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

ENOUGH OF THIS @Slatersteven:. There is no such thing as an art shop. Wikipedia literally has no article on art shop. Not even a redirect. You continue to misunderstand and/or ignore the role of fungible and non fungible goods, and the economic exceptionality of art objects. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have zero subject area expertise and that this gap is impacting your ability to make informed and thoughtful comments here at this discussion. @Seraphimblade, Masem, and David Eppstein: this is what I mean by saying that the dismissal of subject area expertise is preventing this discussion to progress in a productive manner.--Theredproject (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that is because I do not see how that affects notability. You are right, I do not care they are non fungible, as I do not see why that is even relevant. As to the rest, comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, The Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art is a private (commercial) contemporary art gallery. Is it a shop? Vexations (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a mix of a gallery and a museum (as they have a permanent collection). Mind you, the gallery still serves a significant commercial purpose, but for the sake of notability it rests more on its museum function. --Masem (t) 21:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem, Slatersteven but do you still think it has similarities to a grocery shop,even MORE Similarities to a grocery shop than to a museum? What about something like the Whitechapel Gallery? It publishes books, but you can't buy the artwork they exhibit. Or what about the Institute of Contemporary Arts, which also sells books, but again, not the art they exhibit. Still think they're "just" a shop?

Here's something you may not know; you actually can't buy most of the art that is for sale in blue-chip galleries. Not because you can't afford it, although that may be a problem, but because it is not for sale to people like you and me. The clientele of such galleries consists of people and institutions who can increase the value of the work. Part of managing the career of an artist is strategically placing work with the right buyer. Often, especially in the case of emerging and mid-career artists, such work is only available to institutional clients. Vexations (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Now we're getting to differences in types of galleries, where above we were talking smaller boutique galleries, but these are examples of ones that function more as museums (But I note, not all museums are automatically notable, either). But both cases give reasons why that specific gallery is important from sources.--Masem (t) 22:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem, Well, I'm glad that you agree that some galleries are more like museums than grocery stores. Slatersteven are you also in agreement that contemporary art galleries are not like grocery stores? Then perhaps we can stop making such comparisons and not try to reason that x is like y, y is not notable therefor x is not notable. Instead we could say that: 90% the members of group x with characteristics a, b and c meet the GNG, so the remaining 10% who share those characteristics are presumably notable. Perhaps we could let professionals in the field figure help us determine what those characteristics are? I think that would be productive. Vexations (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Which takes us nicely back to "what the hell are we talking about". Are we talking about (especially as (yet again) the example used in fact passes current notability criteria) commercial galleries, or one specific subset of them (and if so why?)? But just because some galleries are a bit like museums does not mean all are, so how do we differentiate? As to allowing professionals to decide, we do already, if the professionals (whatever that means) do not think it should get stand alone coverage why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We already do let the professionals in the field help us determine which ones are notable and which not. They either write substantial amounts about them, or they don't. By seeing whether they did, we can determine whether the professionals in the field considered something notable—they will tell us by extensively noting it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• How do we know that a record producer is notable?... sources discuss him/her. How do we know a gallery is notable?... sources discuss it. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm simply asking what purpose anyone thinks is served by comparing a record producer to an art gallery. I don't think any purpose is served. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Look up "analogy".----ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, Masem and I just had a little subthread where we discussed how subject-specific notability guidelines function. The crux of his argument was, I paraphrase his point correctly, that if I can show that 90% or more of something is notable, we can establish a number of criteria that, if met, make a subject that is challenged at AfD presumably notable. We were discussing the almost unsourced case of an olympic athlete as an example. Are you now telling me that we can't have a subject-specific notability guideline for galleries after all? Vexations (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, subject-specific guidelines are intended to help point out cases where it's very likely that most subjects in a given category will pass the GNG. For example, actors and musicians have won major awards—if someone's won an Oscar or a Grammy, it's very, very likely that sufficient material about them will exist to write an article, even if those sources aren't currently in the article. Athletes are rather a poor example; in my experience, many athletes pass the athlete guideline but aren't actually notable, so I think those are a great example of one that doesn't helpfully identify topics overwhelmingly likely to be notable. But really, I don't like the idea of subguidelines anyway. It is the responsibility of the editor who starts a mainspace article to verify that sufficient source material exists for that subject, and to cite those sources from the very beginning. That should always be done prior to creating an article anyway. So if galleries really are notable, great! Get your sources in order, start the article, cite them, and then you've nothing to worry about anyway, as you've already shown that it's notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Galleries don't garner commentary. Art and artists gather commentary. Galleries are always going to be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other subjects. That does not mean we should not have articles on art galleries. If sourcing is sufficient to support even a rudimentary, stub-like article, it should be allowed to exist. Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Galleries don't garner commentary. If they don't get commentary, then there is zero need to continue discussing any type of special allowances for galleries. They can meet the GNG with NCORP cavaets, but special considerations without a guarentee of GNG-type sourcing ? Nope. --Masem (t) 21:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much what Masem said. If galleries generally don't garner much commentary, then most of them won't be notable. That's nothing new—most software engineers (including me) aren't notable; most cats aren't notable; most bowling leagues aren't notable. So that's just one more case of "Most X aren't notable". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect, that's incorrect, and missing the point. Galleries generate enormous commentary on the exhibitions they stage. The problem here is that the coverage is on X subject at Y gallery, and a number of us with long experience in the field are arguing against the notinherited argument applied to Y gallery, as it does not adequately address the contribution of galleries to the notability of artists they show. No gallery, no coverage of either X or Y. Correct on software engineers though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that doesn't work. That's basing the argument that galleries are the only way an artist can get recognized, which is BS. It may be the most conventional , but that's certainly not the exclusive way. --Masem (t) 22:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"That's basing the argument that galleries are the only way an artist can get recognized" How else can an artist get recognized? Separate question: what is the most common means by which the public becomes aware of a newly emerging artist? Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone like Bansky appears to have been recognized for simply having their art in the public eye, without help of exhibits. They can open a shop and sell them. There is nothing in the art world that says "you must be featured in a exhibit in a gallery to be successful"; it can lead to success but its not required. --Masem (t) 22:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Banksy Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem—did you intend to link to Jaroslav Bánský? Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote "Galleries don't garner commentary." And then I compared them to art and artists vis-à-vis their commentary-garnering abilities and I expressed the opinion that relative to art and artists, galleries garner lesser commentary. I said this in order to express that a sort of entity we should have articles on, namely galleries, is likely to have fewer sources on it. I did not say we should have articles on galleries for which there might not be any sources. I am saying we should make allowance for the fact that commentators tend to comment on art and artists with a greater frequency than they do on galleries. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A Few Case Studies

• I took a very short cruise through a dozen of the 3790 articles in the Category:American record producers. I found a whole lot of wildly unsourced articles that probably should go straight to AFD, like Michael Baskette, Jake Bass, Jeff Bass, Casey Bates, who even has his ownCategory:Albums produced by Casey Bates, John Battiloro, Doug Beck. But I found a few in particular that help frame this conversation.

• The Basement Boys: The Washington Post lists them alongside some big names "Deep Dish, Thievery Corporation, the Basement Boys" and later calls them out as Ultra Naté's "Baltimore production team the Basement Boys". Instinct Magazine has a couple of paragraphs discussing Crystal Waters noting them as "Baltimore hitmakers The Basement Boys." The page notes they produced Paula Abdul, Michael Jackson, Erykah Badu, Bob Sinclar, Crystal Waters, and Ultra Naté, and that "The group's only chart entry in the UK Singles Chart occurred in February 1991, presenting Ultra Naté, on "Is It Love?" (UK #71)."
• Sean Beavan who mixed the defining albums for Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson. Lots of references mentioning this.
• or look at Alan Moulder, who is noted for many of those same things.
• Hurby Azor. I found a continual string of passing references, that all say something like 'Hurby "Luv Bug" Azor, credited with discovering and producing Salt-N-Pepa and Kid 'n Play' Dozens upon dozens of them, in Complex, the Village Voice, the Guardian, XXL, Rolling Stone, Billboard, The Source. All passing, noting that he was the producer for other acts.

I want to be clear that I think these four are not uniform, and I think fall over a continuum. Tell me about how WP:NOTINHEIRITED works here? And also how WP:SIGCOV applies here? --Theredproject (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is exactly what many of us are concerned with, not notable subjects slipping though the net. By all means AFD them, I will vote to delete any that are found wanting. But two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have spent the last 30m going through and researching closer the ones that I listed above, and nominated the following at AFD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Beck
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Bates
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 28 - for Bates category
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Bass (3rd nomination) - FYI it prob is only the first nom, as common name
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Battiloro (2nd nomination) - prob actually second nom

The other three are actually more complicated, and closer examples to the ones I gave above.

• Michael Baskette is the producer on Guns N' Roses and Slash (musician) and other records. He has lots of mentions. A few interviews.
• Jeff Bass is eminem's producer.

@Slatersteven: These are the ones I think clearly should be deleted. If this is exactly what you are concerned with, you should go ahead and nominate any that you feel should be deleted.--Theredproject (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHER, this is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not about my actions (or lack of them) but about notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Tell me about how WP:NOTINHEIRITED works here? And also how WP:SIGCOV applies here? Specifically to these examples. You can do so at AFD, or you can do so here. But you don't get to say this is exactly what you are concerned with in one comment, and then say it doesn't matter in the next--Theredproject (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not, I have said these fail it, but this is not about them, this is about galleries.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven—you are saying this is about notability but wouldn't notability criteria be more effective if they were tailored to specific subject matter? Bus stop((talk) 14:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That would mean every subject would need tailored polices, and that would become unwieldy and confusing (especially when it is in an area where there can be dispute over what qualifies as fitting that criteria). We do not benefit from (as is the case now where we have specific notability criteria) 100's of one line stubs. We are an encyclopedia, not a directory, thus entries should be informative, not just a list entry.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"We are an encyclopedia, not a directory". This AfD just closed. The result was keep. But why was it up for deletion? "Foxy Production is a New York contemporary art gallery...established in 2003". Sources may be sparse but Foxy Production is not a "directory". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Why ask me, I did not nominate it, or (as far as I know) vote to delete it. Presumably the nominator did not think it passed notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Core to NOTINHERITED is that the inherited nature is based primarily on WP editors' judgement. If several RSes say "This art gallery is important to the art for holding temporary exhibits for these notable artists." and which basically serves as the core reason the gallery is important to the art world, then while the notability of that is coming from an inherited facet, the fact that it comes directly fro the sources makes it fine. Without that type of sources, we as editors can't make the leap of logic.

Also, as noted, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. Also, you should use examples that have been shown to have survived a recent AFD (like, 4-5 years old). Since we have no barrier to creation of articles, people can get away with bad content all the time, and a few of those above fail as BLP with zero sourcing. --Masem (t) 14:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I look away from this discussion for a couple days, and it's shifted from galleries to producers/musicians. :) Ultimately, no criteria should make it possible to have articles on things that haven't received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That doesn't correspond to what actually matters in the real world, of course, but it's part of what makes this project work. We do have several guidelines from the old days that have been grandfathered in without that assurance, and they are responsible for heaps of poorly sourced, spammy, or permastub articles. ...But while they're difficult to fix (the restructuring of WP:ORG a couple years ago and recent deprecation of WP:PORNBIO are steps in the right direction), I don't think we've introduced new guidelines that do that in a long while. Subject-specific guidelines should aid in explaining the indicators that correlate to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They can also restrict our interpretation of such (as WP:ORG does somewhat, and as WP:FRINGEN, WP:EVENT, etc. do in other ways). If other SNGs aren't doing what they should be doing (I would agree in some cases), then the answer is to fix those. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

case study #1

Earlier in the conversation I mentioned that I think there are certain criteria that we can use in an SNG. It is one of my contentions that participating in the highly selective Art Basel art fair for more than five years is a good indication that sources exists. As I offered Masem, I could show that 90% of all galleries that meet that criterion do in fact meet the GNG. I have just added Bortolami (gallery). I don't specifically mention Art Basel in the article, but there are other patterns that I think are worth considering. 75% of the roster consists of artist who have an article, for example. Yes, I'm aware of the circular argument, but you'll notice that only the article on Ivan Morley explicitly mentions that he is represented by Bortolami, so there is in fact no self-referential claim of significance. Anyway, have at it. Prove that I'm wrong. Vexations (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is with the 10% that don’t pass GNG, not the 90% that do. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think that's a bit of a catch 22. If I could show that 100% meet the criteria, I wouldn't need a SNG. But unless I can show that 100 % meet the GNG, I can't have an SNG. Under what conditions can I have an SNG then? Vexations (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Try different criteria. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, that is absurd. If that's how this is supposed to work, none of the SNGs could have come about. Vexations (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we have an example of one of the 10%?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, In the list I provided above, there are two articles that have been deleted at AfD. I'd rewrite and re-create Simon Lee Gallery and Richard Gray Gallery if I didn't feel that it was too soon after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lee Gallery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray Gallery. I have quickly thrown together Bortolami (gallery), Almine Rech, Skarstedt and Jack Shainman Gallery and intend to add Miguel Abreu Gallery, Peter Freeman, Inc., Howard Greenberg Gallery, kaufmann repetto, Anton Kern Gallery, Andrew Kreps Gallery, Fergus McCaffrey, Mitchell-Innes & Nash, David Nolan Gallery, Petzel, Sikkema Jenkins & Co., Van de Weghe Fine Art. To clarify, these are all galleries that have, for at least five years, participated in serveral international art fairs, at least Frieze and Art Basel. My assertion is that participation in a highly selective event (they have a selection committee or jury) is an indication that they are among the most important active art galleries in the world and is is reasonable to presume that they are likely notable, because it is very likely that sources exist. And again, this is based on existing guidelines currently in use on the German Wikipedia. In doing so, I hope that am complying with everything that has so far been asked of me. I'd appreciate it if we could now agree that what I'm doing is indeed going to satisfy everyone that my assertion can indeed be proven correct using the method I outlined. Or explain exactly what it is I ought to do instead. Vexations (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry your suggestion was they have participated in the Art Basel for at least five years. What you ought to do is drop this (as you have been told) as you are not getting anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I don't recall being to to drop this, except by you, just now. I asked what the process was, got clarification from Masem, and set about complying with every requirement. I haven't even insisted that those requirement were in fact established in policy or documented somewhere. But now you're telling me there is no process for creating an SNG that I can use? If there is a way to (legitimately) create an SNG for a subject, just say how that's supposed to work. Or admit that there is no process I can use, because, well, why exactly? Please explain. Vexations (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the kind, I have pointed out you said X, and when asked to give an example of X you gave an example of X+1, "participating in the highly selective Art Basel art fair for more than five years is a good indication that sources exists." does not say "a...Art Basel art fair (and others)...". We need a concrete and clear proposal, not shifting ideas that change when ever any one asked for (for example) an example).Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I pointed out that the subjects in my example exceed the requirement of 5 years at Art Basel, because they also particpated in other fairs. For clarity's sake, the German guideline de:Wikipedia:Richtlinien bildende Kunst that I referred to says: "Regelmäßige, mindestens fünfmalige Teilnahme an den internationalen Kunstmessen Art Cologne, Art Basel, The Armory Show – The International Fair of New Art, New York, Frieze Art Fair oder Art Forum Berlin (evtl. Arco, Madrid)" (translation: Regular participation in at least five of the international art fairs Art Cologne, Art Basel, The Armory Show – The International Fair of New Art, New York, Frieze Art Fair oder Art Forum Berlin (possibly Arco, Madrid)). The sample set that I have chosen to work on consists of all galleries with an exhibition space in New York that have participated in Art Basel for at least five years consecutively. I suppose I could have set up a more rigorous randomized experiment. It that is a requirement, please point me to a the discussion that has established one of the current SNGs in an exemplary manner so that I can follow that example. Whatever the method is supposed to be, I'll happily do it that way. Vexations (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Then you did not word it very well, so let me clarify. You are saying that each of your examples above have participated in Art Basel for at least five years?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes Vexations (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The frustrating thing, and the SNG for trainers

I think what is most frustrating about this discussion for those of us with professional experience in the arts is unwillingness to acknowledge that artists do not get famous on their own. They are specifically chosen and supported by art galleries. It is a symbiotic relationship. Like it or not (many artists do not like it), galleries and exhibition venues are the certifying source for an artist's practice, both in the real world and the academic world. Scientists need journal articles; artists need exhibitions in good galleries. The gallery is an important part of the art world and does deserve specific notability guidelines, or to at least be integrated into WP:CREATIVE. I notice over at Sports notability guideline that they specifically acknowledges the symbiotic role of coaches and horse trainers-- another symbiotic relationship that enables the notability of the athlete. To wit:

• "A coach or horse trainer who worked with many competitors (human or animal) considered notable by the criteria above, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World Equestrian Games champion." and
• "A coach or choreographer who has worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion (e.g. Pam Gregory, and David Wilson)"
• "Coaches are presumed notable if they

• Have coached many notable athletes, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World champion or
• Have been the official head coach of an Olympic or World Championship team

• For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines.

So it is not as if it's not possible or sensible to create SNG for those in a symbiotic and foundational relationship with the main notable person. I think what we actualy need to do is spin off WP:Artist into a criteria that deals only with artists, art galleries and curators. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem (and difference) is that a trainer or coach is a direct influence )are you a sport professional?), a gallery is not. It may show art, it does not inform it. In fact I would suggest that art schools and teachers are a closer analogy. In that respect a gallery is closer to the place the athlete performs in or trains in.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, and you know this how? Vexations (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

From my limited understanding of how galleries operate, they exhibit art produced by an artist, they do not (as far as I know) train the artist in how to produce art. Is that incorrect (on the whole)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why you want to argue so vociferously on a subject that you obviously (and admittedly) have a very limited understanding of. This is not general editing where you do not need to understand the material-- we are talking about notability guidelines, were you actually do need to understand the material. Your ignorance on the subject yet willingness to take a position is a bit detrimental overall. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

expertise is not required. Rather then have a go you could have answered a simple question, do art galleries provide one on one tuition and like a coach or trainer? You raised an analogy, I want to see how analogous it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Also there is another issue, one of policy impact, Coached are not part of athletes notability ("if coached by a notable coach"), galleries are part of an artists notability, thus you get circular notability possibilities.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are we even getting into these analogies? "Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" should be the starting point. The next level contains reliable indicators that something has achieved that. The relevant arguments shouldn't be "[role] is important because...", but "[role] is going to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources because..." Wikipedia policies and guidelines shouldn't require specialized knowledge such someone would be justified trying to silence others in the community due to lack of credentials or specific expertise (any such attempts at exclusion, by the way, will almost always have the opposite of the desired effect, Wikipedia being what it is). The particulars of a field may produce relevant restrictions on inclusion, as with MEDRS and ORG, and expertise can be valuable in helping us to determine which sources are reliable, but having significant coverage of something (or an indicator of the same) should be the bare minimum for notability such that we don't need to read into the roles and base things on what Wikipedians say is important to this or that endeavor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Why, indeed. Coincidentally enough, I'm the original author of one of the guidelines ThatMontrealIP is quoting (and, indeed, he quotes me verbatim). Please allow me to shed some light: when I first drafted those guidelines, I didn't give the alleged "symbiosis" of ice hockey coaches or general managers with the players, the sport or the Frozen Freddies ice cream stand in Quincy the slightest thought. The standard set was that a coach who meets certain performance standards would likely meet the GNG. In the years since, we've tested those presumptions against the GNG, and tightened up the standards several times where they've been found lacking against that benchmark. Our answer to editors outside the WikiProject who question the standards is not a deeply offensive "We know this sport and you don't, so you're not entitled to an opinion." It is, instead, "We have tested these standards against the GNG; feel free to do the same." In no way would I push this "art galleries are just important, so there, because reasons, so they should be entitled to articles, the GNG be damned" with respect to ice hockey, or any other sport, or any other subject on Wikipedia. Galleries are made important by the world noticing them. Ravenswing 01:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, just to follow up on your comments, I think everyone is entitled to an opinion here. And I do understand the need to have sources and coverage under GNG and how it plays into how the whole project works. But as someone with some experience in the field (sorry!), I do think that the artist-gallery relationship is not a wholly independent one, and the review coverage does point in at least a minor way to saying something about the notability of a gallery, even if it is not a prime determinant. This is a unique situation where policy does not meet the reality of the notability of the organizaiton(s), but so be it. (By the way, I also went and looked at some article pages for coaches, and could not find the coverage/SNG relationship that you mention for a page like John Archer (basketball)). Finally, it seems consensus is clear here that no SNG is desired for art galleries. So I will step out of this here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As it happens, what you describe is nowhere near "unique" -- analogies can be drawn to many other fields. Authors don't get noticed without being published, so is every publisher, however small or obscure, therefore notable? A figure skater doesn't become noticed without the support of her skating club or the rink in which she practices, so are they automatically notable? How many bands before the Internet era became noticed beyond their local patch only through the work of a promoter, or the publicity of the DJ who pushed their singles on the radio? How many actors or screenwriters would be noticed without their agents? (Heck, no one gets mentioned in reliable sources without the reporters or authors who write those pieces; are all of them notable?) And so on. Ravenswing 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You are saying "Heck, no one gets mentioned in reliable sources without the reporters or authors who write those pieces; are all of them notable?" I don't think anyone has suggested we write an article on every art gallery. I don't think we should be writing articles on galleries that have been in existence for too short a period of time or for which there is simply too little reliably sourced material with which to write an article. We are trying to be informative. If we are going to write an article we should have something worthwhile to say. I think I share your concern and the concern of others that an article can be just a placeholder. But I'm not sure that that is the problem. Because we are deleting at AfD worthwhile articles that have some semblance of substance. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You say "Galleries are made important by the world noticing them." Are you saying we should not be making them important by writing a Wikipedia article about them? What about our readers? Aren't we writing articles for readers? I never thought of Wikipedia as an advertising service, and if it is, that would be an unintended byproduct of our service to our readers. We don't refuse to write articles out of the reasoning that doing so might promote the entity that is the subject of the article. Furthermore I think the benefit to galleries of having an article on Wikipedia is minimal. The art-going public probably has a multitude of other sources of information on what is interesting in galleries within their visiting distance. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOT#GUIDEBOOK. We write articles because reliable sources have ascribed importance on the specific topic. No other reason. We're not here for every item one could conjure that a reader might find interested because's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 01:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not remotely suggest that Wikipedia might be used as a guidebook in order to visit galleries. Do you seriously think the art-going public looks to Wikipedia to find art galleries? Here we have "Best art galleries in New York City". Here we have "Best Chelsea art galleries". I don't think Wikipedia is used by our readers to determine which galleries to visit. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not the role of Wikipedia to make a subject important by writing an article about it. Other publications may choose different priorities for their audiences, but regardless, the Wikipedia community has not chosen to confer real-world importance upon subjects. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

False equivalency, there. (By no means for the first time in this sorry debate, I find.) Yes, indeed, we should indeed hope that people will read the articles we write, and no, I don't imagine too many people go to Wikipedia to find art galleries. What any of that has to do with the topic at hand I haven't the least clue, and it seems that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

That being said, surely you've noticed that consensus is very solidly against the notion of special treatment/SNGs for art galleries, and it's long past time to lose graciously and move on. It is not that we don't understand what the gallery partisans are saying. It's that we don't agree with what they're saying. Ravenswing 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We follow, we do not lede. Also I am now asking directly, do any of you have a wp:COI with this topic area?Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No conflict at all. But your question, "any of you" points to one problem here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not my imagination that substantial subjects for articles are getting deleted. That one did not get deleted. But this is a habitually problematic area of our project. It should not be perpetually open season on art galleries, whether people like them or not. They constitute substantial subjects for articles. And they don't tend to be supported by an enormity of sources. We should have a little bit of common sense. Our raison d'être are not our notability criteria. That gallery is supported by some sources and it has been in operation in New York City since 2003. Plenty has been written in reliable sources about the artists and artworks that have featured in exhibitions at the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm happy to report that my conflict of interest is limited to having visited just about every gallery that met the proposed criteria for presumed notability that I outlined above. I am not engaged in paid or unpaid promotional work for galleries or artists, and I avoid writing about artists whose work I own or even those whose work I like. For example, I put a lot of effort in Florine Stettheimer but can't stand her work. I think it's awful. I make an effort to not let my biases affect my editing. I do not stand to gain, either financially or in social capital from anything I contribute to Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

So I hope then that no one had claimed to have any professional expertise, and that this trumps merely amateur knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stepping back and remembering NCORP

Keep in mind how this discussion started: complaints that galleries should be exempt from NCORP. Unfortunately, nothing has yet shown that galleries should not be covered by NCORP, as they are businesses first and foremost. With all the discussion of producers and couch (who are people and not subject to NCORP), we're getting off track here.

NCORP does not allow any exemption for any organization from its overall arcing metrics "No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools". So art museums also must pass NCORP as well. We haven't made any exemptions for this. All this pandering to "galleries are implicitly notable for the type of artists they feature" simply does not work in the context of NCORP, and if we're not letting schools squeak by, we're certainly not going to let galleries squeak by either. No one is denying that in the art world that galleries serve an important function, but if that function is not well documented for a specific galleries, or limited to a narrow set of literature like trade magazines, that's even more reason to not have articles per WP:AUD.

I do believe those wanting the exemption here are not at all trying to commercially promote art galleries, nor are any of the art galleries raised in question here actively pursuing inclusion on WP for commercial purposes, but we need to stress that WP is rife with problems with barely notable companies and organizations using WP as part of a SEO advertising approach to boost their sales and services. NCORP is written as an across-the-board guideline so that no organization aiming to promote itself on WP can slip through. If we go lax in one article, that can lead to more organizations slipping through elsewhere. Its nothing against art galleries, but they still need to comply with this --Masem (t) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You refer to an "SEO advertising approach". I can only vouch for myself—it never crossed my mind. (I'm assuming that means "search engine optimization".) Does it make any sense that anyone would want to optimize search engine results for all or several art galleries? Maybe one could harbor suspicians that an editor has a vested interest in one art gallery. But what is the likelihood that several editors would have a vested interest in optimizing search engine results for all or several art galleries? Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I doubt there's a significant SEO going on for art galleries. Just as there are for public schools. Or self-help organizations. Or hospitals, or a bunch of other types of organizations that NCORP covers. I'm stressing that NCORP has a "no exemptions" for a reason here and other things you'd get exemption do not. --Masem (t) 15:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think that there is "a significant SEO going on for art galleries" then why suggest it? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that NCORP exists to make sure that WP cannot be used as a promotional channel for any organization. It has no exemptions even for organizations that would not likely use WP for promotion as to make sure there are no "cracks" that other businesses could use to support this, even if that means that some of these organizations that have no interested in promotion via WP will not get articles. Another way to look at it: there are organizations that may have cultural or societal importance, but because there are many many more for-profit businesses that have shown no end to wanting to push their business adverstising through WP, we have to have more restrictive notability guidelines for any organization, unfortunately catching up organizations like art galleries within that. --Masem (t) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So, art galleries are not interested in Wikipedia-enabled search engine optimization but we should not host articles on art galleries anyway. By failing to make a distinction between the "ABC Gallery Of Contemporary Art" and the "Jingle Ice Cream Company" we would be acting against or own self-interest. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we're saying that if you cannot show that the gallery can pass the GNG bar from the onset, we're not going to give it special treatment, just as we would for the ice cream company. We can't weaken NCORP for any class of organization just because we feel the GNG is too restrictive for elements of that class. --Masem (t) 16:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"We can't weaken NCORP for any class of organization just because we feel the GNG is too restrictive for elements of that class." Notability criteria should not be weak or strong. Notability criteria should be appropriate. Some of us think we are having a problem with the deletion of reasonable-quality articles on art galleries. I believe that is traceable to an innate inconspicuousness of art galleries vis-à-vis sources explicitly addressing art galleries; when sources address art galleries they do so indirectly. Sources typically lavish attention on the artworks and the artists. But such attention is not unrelated to the gallery itself, and such sourcing should be taken into consideration when evaluating the notability of art galleries. I also think notability should take into consideration duration of existence. A gallery that has stayed alive for a considerable amount of time in the competitive and expensive setting of the New York City art environment should be worthy of our consideration, in my opinion, if there is sufficient reliably-sourced material for such an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally, yes notability guidelines should not be hard, but WP as a promotional tool had gotten out of hand that we need something like NCORP to deal with it. It doesn't prevent an article on an organization with appropriate GNG sourcing to be created, but stresses that it should be at the GNG level when it is created or otherwise will likely be deleted because of the active stance against promotional content. It doesn't prevent articles on galleries to be created, but only that the sourcing is in place first before they go into mainspace. --Masem (t) 16:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What is "promotional" about art galleries? You earlier said that "I doubt there's a significant SEO going on for art galleries." You are now saying "It doesn't prevent an article on an organization with appropriate GNG sourcing to be created, but stresses that it should be at the GNG level when it is created or otherwise will likely be deleted because of the active stance against promotional content." I won't be offended if you think I am promoting art galleries. Do you think I am promoting art galleries? Or trying to document an important area of interest? Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I already said I don't think anyone in this convo supporting gallery inclusion is trying to promote them. I am trying to explain that we are not weakening NCORP to allow art galleries - or any other type of organizational class - to have lenience under NCORP without meeting the GNG. Otherwise, editors from other types of organizations will want exemption too, and could lead us back to the same issues why NCORP was severely firmed up recently. --Masem (t) 17:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

While those of us in this conversation might not be trying to promote any specific gallery (or even galleries in general)... we have learned from experience that there are others who will (Such as unscrupulous gallery owners). We want to make that as difficult as possible... while at the same time covering truly notable galleries. The best way to do this is to adhere to WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem and Blueboar—when sources address art galleries they often do so indirectly, typically lavishing attention on artworks and artists. We are trying to address that problem here in this thread. That problem doesn't apply to other sorts of entities. It is peculiar to art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Strange... people keep suggesting criteria ... claiming that the criteria indicate a high probability of source coverage for galleries that meet the criteria... but then complain that sources don’t actually cover the galleries, but the art and artists. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"While those of us in this conversation might not be trying to promote any specific gallery (or even galleries in general)... we have learned from experience that there are others who will (Such as unscrupulous gallery owners)." How would "unscrupulous gallery owners" overcome consensus? Would they get the gallery staff to sign on as meat puppets? Wouldn't we notice single-purpose-accounts? Bus stop (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Its not a question of overcoming consensus, loom at all those finds above of articles that will now get deleted. Its about the fact they will, use any slackening of policy to justify a page, and argue the toss about it, its about added workload to people who are not paid to edit WP.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So do we have any actual proposals yet?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, No. Do we have an actual process? Try and articulate one first. Show me where and how it has been used, and we can follow the same. All I see is made-up requirements are have never been asked of anyone but us. Vexations (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, I was not party to any other such weakening of policy, but yes I have said similar comments when people have asked "should we do X", in a way that could be viewed as a blank cheque. I will not agree to something until I know what it is I am agreeing to, all this would be is "yes I agree to a discussion". Because even if we agree that this is a good idea, we would then need to thrash out the actual criteria, more discussion. So lets get it over with now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"I was not party to any other such weakening of policy". Policy would not be said to be weakened or strengthened by the sort of change under contemplation. The point to such policy as is under contemplation is appropriateness. What does strengthened policy mean? Do you want perfectly good articles excluded from the project under strengthened policy? Of course you do not. It is not inconceivable that you would want strengthened notability criteria in reference to some subject area known for its plethora of supporting sources. But that is not the case pertaining to galleries of contemporary art. Concerning galleries of contemporary art supporting sources tend to be in short supply. And the invoked boogeyman of the "unscrupulous gallery owner" shows just how bizarre has become the reasoning in this discussion. In my opinion the "promotion" of art galleries is not even on the radar. No one could care less about promoting anything. That would include the sensationalized gallery owners. Furthermore we have the very important principle of wp:consensus. There is no way a gallery owner is going to foist an article upon Wikipedia when the consensus of editorship opposes it. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I consider it a weakening of out notability policy by creating a lesser standard needed for a type of institution just because no one gives a damn about them (except those in the field), if they did they could be sourced to RS now. As to obeying consensus, well its against this suggestion so why not drop it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way is "creating a lesser standard" different from "weakening of policy"? Aren't you saying the same thing a different way? Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the typo might have confused you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You missed the point of the previous discussion, this is not about "unscrupulous gallery owners", but the fact that NCORP makes no exemptions for any type of organization across the board - no school, no church, no non-profit, no musuem, and certainly no art gallery. It may be heavy handed but it was needed to prevent organizations from abusing WP's notability approach to allow articles on organizations to be advertising and promotion rather than encyclopedic. Every type of organization is subject to this. If you have an organization that can pass the GNG with the NCORP caveats, then you are clear, and it certainly clear a fair number of art galleries can pass this, just not as many as it appears some want. --Masem (t) 13:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, we have addressed the issue in this thread, regarding most galleries not receiving substantial coverage. The fact that it hasn't been addressed in the way you would like doesn't mean it hasn't been addressed. The answer is, very simply, that if they have not received substantial coverage in reliable sources, they are not notable and not suitable for an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think Bus Stop, Vexations and I have any commercial interest whatsoever here. If you know the art world, you'll know it's only a small upper tranche that actually makes any money. The rest of are in it because it's what we do and believe in. Not making any argument against NCORP here-- just pointing out that the art business is a hard business to make any money at all! My own interest in seeing more coverage was for what we call the "parallel gallery system" here in Canada, where small artist-run galleries (example) do good work in promoting visual culture and and are an important facet of many communities. But I see the resistance is massive to any changes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Heck, I don't think any gallery owners "have any commercial interest...here". Bus stop (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The “commercial interest” argument is irrelevant ... since WP:ORG applies to non-profit organizations as well as for-profit organizations. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

With respect, if you had actually read my comment, you would see I was not making an argument at all. Vexations, TRP, Bus stop and I were asked if any of us had a COI, and I was commenting on that. it was just a comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar—you wrote "While those of us in this conversation might not be trying to promote any specific gallery (or even galleries in general)... we have learned from experience that there are others who will (Such as unscrupulous gallery owners)." I think that is incorrect. I don't think an owner of a gallery of contemporary art would consider a Wikipedia article to be of any consequence. I think they would consider it entirely irrelevant to their interests. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I am far more skeptical. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How long is this going to be dragged on for?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven—you have said "So as to see if this is unique to art shops, or if it apl;lies to any other money making business. The issue of record shops that promote up and coming bands is very analogous." Please tell me what an "art shop" is. I am not telling you not to weigh into this discussion, but I think it is a responsibility of all weighing in here to engage in constructive dialogue with others. Good faith editors do not respond to questions with "Yes, I understand the typo might have confused you." No one is forcing you to participate in a discussion concerning notability criteria for art galleries. If you choose to participate, please try to do so constructively. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This has long gone past constructive debate, we are discussing the same stuff over and over again, this is now well into wp:tenditious territory. We have been at this for nearly a month now, and it has gone nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I figured a week ago that it had reached the "meh, whatever" point. No proposal had received a lick of support then or now, and indeed no tangible proposal's even really been proffered. The easiest way for debate to end is not to contribute to it further; I'm comfortable with not getting the last word in, and expect I won't. Ravenswing 13:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Time to close this discussion?

• Close This is going nowhere positive, so it is time to close this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Close and my last word.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Close as OP, and hold this high as an example how one size fits all doesn't work --Theredproject (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cumulative venue notability

WP:INHERIT and WP:INHERITORG, sections in guideline pages concerning notability and deletion process, are sometimes interpreted along the lines of saying that aggregate entities cannot inherit notability from the notability of a few things that they played a key role in originating. Two examples; there are more out there:

• In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox Gallery, User: Bus stop argued that reviews of exhibitions appearing in a gallery are the kind of source that could count as evidence of notability. WP:INHERIT was cited by some editors to say that such sources would be counting towards the notability of those exhibitions, not the gallery that organised them. The discussion continued later in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Justlettersandnumbers.
• In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slate Star Codex, User: Exemplo347 said "Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that Notability cannot be inherited", and when the point was argued, said that the guidelines could not be contested in the scope of an AfD, so the deletion should proceed while policy discussions might continue elsewhere. The discussion did continue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 134#Should notability be inherited with composition?.

The understanding I gleaned from following the discussions and looking at the policy is that WP:INHERIT/INHERITORG assert nothing of the sort; the examples in WP:INHERIT concerning item/aggregate issues all concern the opposite direction: just because a musician is notable doesn't establish notability of one of their less-known songs, and the discussion in INHERITORG does not seem more general in a way that extends to this. Hence I conclude that the appeals to these guidelines in those AfDs were wrong.

The above examples of galleries and websites can be seen as particular instances of venues, which will also cover publishers, conferences and the like. In view of the fact that the guidelines are being appealed to on a matter they do not seem to address, I think this criterion should be explicitly discussed. Two suggestions:

1. We add a new subsection to WP:N#Common circumstances saying that venues can acquire notability through their role in bringing works to the public; or
2. We extend the set of examples in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to cover the kind of arguments made in the AfDs above as not suggesting notability.

I prefer the first option for two reasons: First, it is analogous to many of the ways in which people become notable. E.g., authors most often become notable through writing notable books, academics through publishing high-impact scholarship, or journalists through breaking important stories; when a venue is worth knowing about, it is likewise most often because of its role in bringing work to the public. Second, even if there is little more to be said about the venue than the conjunction of these individual publishing acts, this conjunction itself is often interesting, for reasons that User:Bus stop argued in the AfDs on several contemporary galleries. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

We need to avoid stating this. INHERIT is pretty much that case - even if 100 notable works filter through a museum or similar place, that does not make the museum notable because of inherited notability. There is the potential that in the sourcing, a venue or similar with that many notable works will be judged worthy to be discussed in more depth, but we have to let the sources do that, not presume it will happen. --Masem (t) 14:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem is correct... while hosting notable exhibits may make it more LIKELY that the venue (museum, gallery, etc) will receive independent coverage, we can not assume such coverage exists. It goes the other way as well: the fact that a notable venue hosts an exhibit does not necessarily make the exhibit notable. Coverage of BOTH exhibit AND venue is needed. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The mere existence of a gallery of contemporary art for a minimum amount of time should establish notability for that gallery. Galleries of contemporary art are not very comparable to other business enterprises. What should be required of a gallery of contemporary art in order to establish notability should be a track record of a functioning art gallery over a period of time. Sources can show us notability by showing us a lengthy list of continuous exhibitions of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No... Merely existing is not notable. For any topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Blueboar, and am not convinced that any special notability standards are needed or justified here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar—we are not talking about just "any topic". The primary role of a gallery of contemporary art is the discovery and promotion of new talent. Notability should rest on the functioning of the gallery of contemporary art in the discovery and promotion of new talent. One common way in which this is evidenced is by reviews of shows. WP:INHERIT does not even enter this discussion because the notability of galleries of contemporary art has nothing to do with the notability of artists or artworks associated with the gallery. What would you like to see in reliable sources—that the gallery has green walls? That the lighting is good? That the bathrooms are nice? The gallery of contemporary art is only notable if it has a sufficiently long record of searching for new talent. That is what a gallery of contemporary art is involved in. It is mistakenly compared to other establishments selling products. Notability is not as closely tied to selling art as you might suppose. My argument is that notability is tied to the active seeking of new art/new talent. That is the raison d'être of a gallery of contemporary art. Wikipedia is missing out on covering galleries of contemporary art by holding these entities to inapplicable standards of notability. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Every editor on a special topic can make arguments that their topic is special. We might just as well say that the point of a bakery is to bake bread, not to generate publicity, and therefore that we should accept articles on bakeries based on how much bread they have sold rather than on our usual sourcing-based guidelines. We can't function with a million separate notability guidelines. In what way are the current guidelines producing the wrong outcome regularly enough for separate guidance to be worthwhile? And is the point merely to lower the bar, or are you actually trying to keep the bar at its current height but more accurately targeted? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

+1. As with many other such arguments of this sort, Bus stop's argument boils down to that he wants more articles on art galleries, and notability guidelines ought to be changed or suspended to make this possible. (You could, with just as good a rationale, argue that because apples and bananas are notable, and that vendors are necessary for people to buy them, every mom-&-pop fruit stand is notable.) My belief is that the notability guidelines already in place work just fine, and that there is nothing so uniquely and overwhelmingly special about art galleries that INHERITED and the GNG need to be suspended in their favor. The appropriate answer to "But most art galleries can't qualify for articles under the existing guidelines!!" is "Demonstrably, most art galleries aren't notable." Ravenswing 18:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein—what do you think a gallery of contemporary art is? (Not a rhetorical question.) If a Jean-Michel Basquiat walks in and the gallery fails to recognize the value of the work, the gallery is one step closer to being out of business. That is why length of time in business continuously mounting shows matters so much. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

To you, perhaps. To the owner of the gallery, no doubt. To the artists stocking the walls, no doubt. But it does not therefore follow that galleries merit Wikipedia articles, any more than the aforementioned mom-and-pop fruit stands deserve Wikipedia articles because it might impress Yelp reviewers. Ravenswing 18:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ravenswing—why are you talking about apples and bananas? Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

To answer your non-rhetorical question: I have visited galleries of contemporary art many times, and occasionally purchased things from them. I think of them as a type of store typically found in upscale touristy areas, selling things with which one can decorate your home or office, much like the more decorative coffee table books that one might find in a book shop or (on a much more short-term basis) the flower arrangements or fancy cakes that one might find in a flower shop or bakery. They are likely to hold regular promotions in which they make a show of some artist's work, but in that sense they are no different than the author readings and special displays of the same author's work that one might find at a book shop. Some of them sell artwork that I could buy without blinking an eye if I liked it enough; some of them sell artwork that would stretch my budget but I could afford every few years; some of them sell artwork that is way out of my price range. They are a necessary channel through which artists become known and (for the better ones) notable but that doesn't make them inherently notable themselves, any more than a politician's bodyguard becomes notable when that politician is elected. They can be notable, but so can bookshops and bakeries (I have created at least one article on a bakery). They are bourgeois, and I say that not as an insult but as a description of how I classify them: upscale, but nevertheless part of the world of commerce. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, galleries of contemporary art are not bourgeois. It sounds like you are referring to galleries showing staid art instead of new art. Imitation contemporary art might be found in "upscale ... areas". Typically art galleries showing new art move into rundown areas. And typically gentrification takes place around such art galleries. You refer to galleries "selling things with which one can decorate your home or office". Bear in mind that much art is imitative. There is probably much art out there now that imitates the artwork of Jean-Michel Basquiat. I am not saying there is a foolproof way of separating the wheat from the chaff concerning galleries of contemporary art. But we are needlessly deleting some articles on galleries of contemporary art due to ill-fitting notability guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your snobbish and condescending ideas about the level of gallery I might frequent are inaccurate, unhelpful, and off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not needed. Art galleries and their owners are notable if they have made an impact on the art world, not just for existing. Those that do are written about in the art literature, in magazines, books, and scholarly articles. The history of art is full of information about the galleries that have played a significant role in recognizing and introducing new artists. So we can follow the usual requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Galleries bringing new artists along will have to wait for articles until the independent coverage exists, just as the new artists have to wait until coverage exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research on the significance of an art gallery. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Those that do are written about in the art literature". No they are not. Exhibitions of contemporary art are written about. Little is written about galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If little is written about the galleries, it is not our place to consider them notable. This is a key tenet of WP:V. --Masem (t) 00:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Then that means that, generally, galleries of contemporary art are not notable. I'm sorry if this very simple premise is so hard to comprehend. Ravenswing 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If they have not been noted they are ispe facto not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC).

Except that of course they have been "noted", in the form of reviews of exhibitions held at the art gallery. Reviews of exhibitions can serve as an indication of notability for galleries of contemporary art because the review is indirectly of those instrumental in bringing about the art exhibition. It is not just the artist and Blick Art Materials that bring about an exhibition of contemporary art. Nor are we talking about art being peddled on the street. The artist and the art bear the imprimatur of the gallery because the gallery had the wisdom to endorse the artist and the art. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus is solidly against you, and that's the point when it's time to lose gracefully and move on. You've had multiple attempts now, in more than one forum, to get people to agree with you that art galleries should be prima facie notable. Almost unanimously, no one agrees with you. It's time to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 16:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"The nature of a consensus-based system" requires that you stay on topic. Previously you compared the topic of discussion to "apples and bananas". Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You're the one that argued the fruit vendor analogy was off topic. It is spot on: galleries, storefronts, etc. - entities that show but do not make notable works themselves are not going to be considered notable just because selling or showing notable items. If there is sources that discuss how they have done that in-depth - not just acknowledging they have done so - then we can consider them notable. --Masem (t) 17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am the "one that argued the fruit vendor analogy was off topic." Unless we are talking about Giuseppe Arcimboldo, fruit is off-topic. ("...was an Italian painter best known for creating imaginative portrait heads made entirely of objects such as fruits, vegetables, flowers, fish and books.") Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point that we are all saying no venue is notable for simply hosting multiple notable products/items/events - whether that venue is an art gallery/museum, a brick-and-mortar store, a fruit stage, an arena/stadium, etc. There has to be coverage of that venue in depth. You are asking for inherented notability which we will never allow. --Masem (t) 18:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem—you are discussing museums and fruit stages and arenas when I am only talking about galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Galleries fall under the same category - a venue that only presents something but not responsible for production/creation of that. We're not making a special exemption for galleries just because you insist we do. --Masem (t) 18:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] So you think we should have standards for notability of galleries of contemporary art that are somehow distinct even from our standards of notability for galleries of photography, galleries of plein air beachscapes, or galleries of fine art quilting? That's crazy talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

[2 edit conflicts] But what various people are saying here is that no reason has been provided showing that galleries of contemporary art should be treated differently from those other topics. It is more likely that an art gallery will be written about in reliable sources than a fruit vendor, but that doesn't mean that we should have articles about art galleries that have not been written about in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The gallery is in essence being written about when reviewers write about art exhibitions. This is only applicable to galleries of contemporary art, especially galleries of "cutting edge" contemporary art. By the way, these can be photography galleries. When a gallery is understood to be selling the work of firmly established artists, our notability guidelines should be more stringent, requiring commentary specifically about the gallery in reliable sources. But at the other extreme—scrappy little startups that have been in existence for a few years promoting unknown artists—they warrant articles on Wikipedia. They should not fly below our radar as they do now. Many in this category would contain a mix of known (artists with articles) and unknown artists. There would generally be some information on the gallery, even if from primary sources. We are not saying that such a gallery "inherits" notability from artists. Notability is provided by reviews of art exhibitions, generally held at the art gallery. The gallery is instrumental in bringing about those art exhibitions. And Wikipedia should want to cover these galleries due to their exceptional importance in all that follows as careers develop and art becomes ensconced in museums and is granted widespread acceptance. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"The gallery is in essence being written about when reviewers write about art exhibitions." is 100% BS. Reviewers are writing about the art that is displayed. I can see maybe once in a while the steps the gallery had gone to to present the art in the best manner to be covered, but this is nowhere close that every review is going to have in-depth discussion of the gallery. You are specifically begging for us to use inherited notability to include galleries. You have failed to prove with sources why we should make a case here. --Masem (t) 19:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The gallery is instrumental in bringing about the art exhibition. A review of the work of an utterly unknown artist can provide an indication that the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• A gallery is notable if it has been the primary focus of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Namechecks don't count. Guy (help!) 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Just want to add a gallery is notable if it passes WP:GNG. Mentions don't count. It might even fall under WP:NORG if it's for profit. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Pretty much oppose the expansion of SNGs entirely. I don't really care what the subject is. There is a fan base out there for every subject imaginable that wants to carve out exceptions for their topic area that has nothing to do with whether a well sourced neutral encyclopedia article can be written. This porn star was mentioned as winning an award that no one wrote about and no one cares about other than that one announcement from the porn industry. This brand of tires was listed in passing 300 times as being used on formula 1 cars. My favorite youtuber has five gagillion views but no one has written about them in any depth literally ever. Whatever your niche is, there is a wiki out there that cares about it, and doesn't have rigorous requirements for things like sourcing and neutrality which constrain us in what we can and cannot write about. All these subjects that fall dismally below GNG belong there, not here. GMG^talk 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• It does seem plain to me that every and any counterargument is bouncing off of Bus stop's article of faith that Art Galleries Are All Notable. So far, consensus is unanimously against him (as it's generally been the previous times he's tried this line of reasoning). Is there any useful purpose behind keeping this discussion going? Ravenswing 20:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

But I have not said that all art galleries are notable. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you have said that all galleries of contemporary art are notable. So your special pleading comes off as even more special. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll bite, Bus stop. Are you then stipulating that galleries of non-contemporary art are not notable? Ravenswing 20:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for galleries showing primarily the work of firmly established artists should be more stringent than notability guidelines for galleries showing primarily the art of unknown artists. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that line of logic, that's backwards. Galleries that are routinely showing works from artists like Monet, Picasso, Rembrandt, etc. are likely much more notable than those of unknowns. I would expect that galleries dabbling in exhibiting unknown artists should be much more stricter than those showing the classics. --Masem (t) 22:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Masem—Monet, Picasso, and Rembrandt are not contemporary artists but even if they were galleries don't "inherit" notability from artists. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If you are clear that "galleries don't "inherit" notability from artists", then stop asking for us to make notability exemptions for contemporary art galleries. At this point, you're appearing to be purposely disruptive, wanting the rest of us to bend over backwards for this really odd allowance. Consensus is clearly against this and you appear to understand that. --Masem (t) 22:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe that anyone would make such a ridiculous argument unless they were engaged in special pleading about a particular subject, so User:Bus stop, tell us what that subject is. I suspect that it is about Louise Alexander Gallery, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Alexander Gallery. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger—I have no gallery in mind whatsoever. Without clicking on the link I cannot even remember the discussion at "Louise Alexander Gallery". Maybe it's early onset Alzheimer's. Oh yes, that was from a few days ago. I was not particularly concerned with that gallery because it was handling the work of artists the gallery was not even connected with. This was pointed out to me by another editor. And I had to agree. The other editor pointed out the following: "that it can be established that the gallery contributed in some way to the artists' development" and "They don't have a relationship with these artists." Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Well then, if this isn't about any particular subject then what is it about? If it is a general issue of what makes for the best encyclopedia then it's impossible that any good-faith and even minimally intelligent editor wouldn't have realised from the discussion so far that this idea is a non-flier. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am a big fan of art galleries and visit them with great regularity and occasionally make purchases from them. Some, I have visited many times and consistently enjoy the work they display. Without a doubt, some commercial art galleries are notable. That is because reliable sources have devoted significant coverage to the specific gallery itself as an ongoing institution. This type of coverage will describe the founders of the gallery and its history over the years, and the current management and their philosophy about art, in connection with discussing the gallery as an ongoing business venture. Instead of simply reviewing a current exhibit, it will probably list a number of successful exhibits from the past. It may discuss the architecture of the gallery, and the impact of the gallery on various artists careers over time. Galleries that have received this type of coverage are notable. On the other hand, galleries that receive only passing mention in connection with current exhibits are not notable and articles about such galleries should be deleted. In conclusion, I totally disagree with Bus stop's argument here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• The point by GreenMeansGo is exceptionally well made and exactly on point. When we're wondering what content to include in an article, we consult reliable sources. If we wonder what the current consensus is on a scientific topic, we consult reliable sources. To determine whether we should have an article on something? Consult reliabie sources. They will tell us whether the subject is notable or not, by having chosen to provide substantial, in-depth coverage of it—or not. If "not", we should follow that lead, and similarly not have an article on it. SNGs have just given us massive messes of permastubs, from "populated places" to athletes who played for half a minute in a pro game. No more of that, please. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The point by GMG (02:12, 7 December 2019). Yes, agreed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It's the bit about "what we can and cannot write about" – and by "can", we mean that we're concerned about whether it would actually be possible to produce a neutral encyclopedia article. "Neutral" means that we have to have Wikipedia:Independent sources – no exceptions, no matter how important you are. "Encyclopedia article" means that we have to be able to describe the subject. We don't want pages that say "Alice Expert is a scientist employed by Research University. Her employer says that she is very nice. She has also been quoted in the following long list of newspaper and magazine articles during the last decade:". We similarly don't want pages that say "The Gallery is an art gallery. They mounted the following long list of exhibitions:". What we do want is significant coverage: Who runs the gallery? How did it get started? What are they looking for? What's their niche? What do others think about this gallery? Contrary to the comment about wanting Wikipedia articles to describe the quality of the restrooms, we're really looking for sources that talk about the institution itself. There's a reason that we require multiple independent sources, and it's not just because we think that contemporary art galleries aren't WP:IMPORTANT to the world. It's because we want to write encyclopedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Rosetta Stone?

For years I've been thinking about the challenges and complexities of trying to handle the wp:notability criteria. Recently becoming active at new article curation/review has become a firehose of additional information and perspective. The guidelines have failed to cover what we know intuitively......that that my son's kiddie hockey team with tons of in-depth coverage in local newspapers should not have an article despite full compliance with wp:GNG, but that Acar (bivalve) with only one tertiary source identified probably should. We also have massive amounts of articles which we know should be articles (such as those on species and towns) which require exceptions to wp:notability. Numerically, Wikipedia is sliding towards becoming a listing of sports people & statistics, and a directory of business, products, products and people in cases where any of them can benefit from having an article.

There is also an interesting structural note. Nowhere is wp:notability actually defined! The WP:Notability guideline structurally has two parts and roles; the first is broader than notability, the second is narrower than notability. The beginning of the guideline contains the master statement of what can have a separate article in Wikipedia, with compliance with wp:not included in that. It establishes the "place" of the remainder of wp:gng in the scheme of this as well as that of the SNG's. The remainder of wp:GNG and the SNG's contain requirements but do not specify what wp:notability is. This is inevitable because meeting the "notability" criteria is actually the complex interchange of latter-GNG, the SNG's and wp:not compliance defined by the very beginning of wp:notability.

While complete acknowledgement of the above might need big changes, I think that there is an easy less perfect way to combine all of the above to our advantage. The structurally broader role of the beginning of wp:notability can be used to introduce "degree of encyclopedicness" into the "separate article?" question. My first idea on how to do that would be to add to "2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.". Add the following to it: "Extra consideration should be given to topics which easily comply with wp:not, and extra scrutiny given to topics which only marginally comply with the policy."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideas of WP:NOTDIR and WP:MILL seem to have been lost. Let alone rappers or Indian film actors. Now you've mentioned it though, I wonder how long until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acar (bivalve)? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that are some topic areas that every member of that topic we would reasonably likely have an article on that topic, and those topic areas are when they represent the more basic academic areas like core physical sciences (such as biology). Given the taxonomy tree, I would reasonably expect that each level down to family would have its own article, but at the genus and species level, that's a bit questionable, as our genus article points out, there were 510,000 identified genus with a rate of 2000 added per year. That becomes indiscriminate information if we're just documenting a name of a genus, which is against NOT. (though listing a genus within a family would not be). This is not to same some genus cant have their own standalone page, just that there's likely not sufficient for all 510,000 genus to have their own. --Masem (t) 16:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A genus which has been recognised for 150 years, and has a four character name (and thus was early to the naming party) - we should certainly have that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I picked a bad example; I was trying to find one which we intuitively know should have an article where wp:GNG is not satisfied. But I'll bet the sports SNG exempts at least that many players from wp:GNG. :-) North8000 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, see... remember that we judge on identifiable sourcing, not the current state of sourcing in the article. I did a quick search on Acar and its clearly more documentable than what's there just from a quick Google Scholar search. If I took that to AFD, I would be laughed off. I don't know if all 510,000 genus can be documented to the same degree (I would doubt it). I'm not saying your point is bad, as I think there's something there and aligns with something I've been suggesting earlier, but it's not quite refined yet. --Masem (t) 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was that "degree of enclyclopedicness" should be taken into consideration, and that such would resolve many problems. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. Degree of coverage in reliable sources is at least somewhat objective. Degree of encyclopedicness is mostly not (although a small number of specialized notability guidelines like WP:NSPORT have hammered out specific objective criteria with this aim), and would likely lead to much more heat than light in deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to be a bit careful on "degree of encyclopedicness". If you get into a specialized area, like many popular culture topics with large fan base like Star Wars or Star Trek, you can find "encyclopedia" and one can then argue some of the topics in that would meet the same "degree of encyclopedicness" as we would be describing for a creature in real-life. But it's also possible to get too much academic encyclopedicness as well for a general purpose work. There's a balance here. --Masem (t) 22:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There may be a balance here but it will be very difficult to set that balance uniformly across the encyclopedia without tipping the scale toward the desires of the active fanbases like the Star Wars fans and away from more serious but also more niche topics. If you want to have less fancruft, this is the opposite of the way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the typical article that we're getting flooded with violates wp:not but not decisively enough to stop the article solely on that basis. My idea would be to let the standards of wp:not still have some influence in those cases beyond the binary non-exclusion. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Question... how often do reviewers who do new article review/curation recommend that new articles be merged into existing articles. There are a lot of topics that don’t rate their own articles and yet deserve to be covered somewhere in WP. How often do we look for a potential parent article, and suggest that as the appropriate place to cover the less-than-notable daughter? Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty common, and also a good idea. But once the discussion starts, the proponents for the article generally consider merge to be an adverse outcome, the same as delete and argue accordingly.North8000 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I don't believe this is a good idea at all as it would encourage and promote intellectual snobbery with a preference for academic subjects at the expense of popular culture which is what Wikipedia is most read for according to the stats. WP:NOTPAPER applies and the best way to have a fair system is to stick to WP:GNG with some exceptions such as WP:NCORP and with borderline cases decided at AFD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • But popular culture is also one of the areas that is poorly sourced. Popular culture can be sourced using works like Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. but the bulk of what we have in pop culture is poorly sources, or just documenting mere existence which is against policy. --Masem (t) 21:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Referring to popular culture in a wide context such as modern films, tv shows, bands, albums and so forth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of popular culture articles that are poorly sourced, but sources exist, and those articles can be improved. Beyond the magazines that you mention, there are tons of books about television, film and other non-fiction media commentary and criticism. I think that we should be encouraging people who are interested in those subjects to find and use the rich source material available, rather than discouraging them by saying that those topics are unencyclopedic. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not that they aren't unencyclopedic, but too often people approach them in unencyclopedic manners, focusing on plot summaries and in-universe content (primary sources) over concepts/creation, development, and reception (secondary soruces). That is, content that is of interest to the fans of the work vs content that is of interest to the general reader. That's a struggle, but its generally overcomable. It does limit some of what can be covered though. --Masem (t) 21:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This gets us to the distinction between Notability (whether WP should have a stand alone article on someone or something), and Noteworthiness (what details should go into an article, and HOW we should write about them if they do). These are subtly different concepts, and editors don’t always understand the difference. Perhaps we need more guidance on “Noteworthiness“ (or even a separate guideline). Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

When I started this thread the main group of articles that I have in mind from drinking from the firehose at new article curation usually isn't some academic vs. popular culture quandary. Under any possibility, popular culture is firmly accepted. The focus is more on stuff that really isn't articles that is passing through the curation/AFD process in numerically huge numbers due to some weaknesses in guidelines, and where just a tiny bit of extra consideration for the enclyclopeciness of the topic would help things much. In most cases they might take one topic which would be a good pop culture or sports article and split it up into 20 articles. Examples are:

• In sports, besides the SNG directly exempting I'd guess a half million players from wp:GNG (a whole different topic) the numerically huge category is what I'd call compound derivations that tend to create dozens of article out of one topic. For example an article for each year/season for each sports team. Or for the participation of a particular sports team in a particular tournament. Or a lower level league. (where I've been informed that there is a subpage at project football which is another "general notability guideline" which exempts a league from both wp:gng and the sports SNG.)
• For musical performers, a separate article for each album, and often a separate article for individual song in the album (not that this isn't sometimes a good idea)
• In pop culture, aside from articles on notable musical contest, individual articles from individual countries participation in individual years in that contest. For example an article on participants from the xyz country in the 20xx year of the abc musical contest.

For the ones that I have in mind the typical article consists of 1-2 sentences and then tables of information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the problem is people not taking seriously GNG's requirement for in-depth coverage, rather than some vaguer lack of "encyclopedicness" whatever that means. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really curious to that "(where I've been informed that there is a subpage at project football which is another "general notability guideline" which exempts a league from both wp:gng and the sports SNG.)" page as that completely violates the principles of the GNG/SNG allowances (the only SNG with allowance to override the GNG is NPROF for reasonable arguments). But I think we really need examples of what's going on, as its hard to distinguish what's happening without hard examples to know how to take these. --Masem (t) 23:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:Here's where I learned about the "general notability guideline" for leagues. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lao_Division_1 Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup, FOOTYN is not a notability guideline in any way, and anyone using it as a sole reason for keeping an article at AFD. That essay almost needs to be deleted, it feels inappropriate to keep around if it leads to AFD arguments like that. --Masem (t) 17:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the overall numerical flooding described above, they are the hundreds of articles that I decided not to review and developed this impression from. I didn't keep a list but will note the next ones here as I find them. I intend to add them without re-signing. These are not the slam-dunk deletions, these are ones likely to remain as articles:

• 2019–20_Bashundhara_Kings_season
• 2020_Leinster_Senior_Football_Championship
• Muévelo (Nicky Jam and Daddy Yankee song)
• Electoral results for the Northern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Northern Victoria Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Eastern Victoria Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Eastern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the South Eastern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Southern Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Western Metropolitan Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Electoral results for the Western Victoria Region Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not
• Interserie (1994 season) Because coverage probably exists; barely passes wp:not, SNG possibly gives it a pass.
• Last Man Standing (season 8) Good example. wp:notable series, but an article like this for each season? One sentence and then a lot of data. Barely passes wp:not. IMO sourcing barely passes wp:GNG

North8000 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about sports coverage so I can't comment on those, but for the Last Man Standing season, it's very common for national TV shows to have season articles like that. I would understand your point if it was full of original research speculation or commentary from unreliable sources, but the episode summaries, cast lists and ratings charts are all worthy of being included in this enyclopedia. I agree that it should have more introductory text, but that's something that normal editing can fix. So: yeah, an article (more or less) like that for each season. Why should we not? — Toughpigs (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I just grabbed a bunch of examples in response to the question. I might have picked the last one to rule out bias because I really like that TV show. My thought was that it illustrated: 1. Making one article into 20 articles. 2. Something that passes wp:not but with the article being just a collection of data, listings and plot summaries, didn't pass with flying colors. Maybe I shouldn't have listed that one or chosen a less notable series. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a handful of several interesting here:

• We have articles that are easy to create because they seem like important data to keep but it is because it is easy to make all-stat based articles, which itself is against WP:NOT#STAT. Stats are supposed to be presented in context of relevant information. For example, take all those election results and compare to , say, 2017 New York City mayoral election which at least tries to establish some of the issues at play. Can those election ones be improved? Maybe but it will take serious work. Again, just dropping stats into an article is not appropriate but that's a NOT issue, not a notability thing. We need editors to wrap context around stats before starting such articles. Same with sports seasons.
• There's also the idea of presumption of notability. There's no reason to believe any of these can't be improvement with better GNG-type sourcing, but if they cannot be improved (and because they are all recent topics, this can be shown through Google searches) then AFD is an option. This is not something we want AFC/Page Patrollers to decide - that's beyond their scope, though they should tag such articles as requiring more third-party/independent sourcing.
• To that latter point, this is where I would agree that academic topics like the Acar should get a better pass at AFC compared to topics that fall into more "comtemporary culture" where finding sources should be much much easier. To get that point at AFC, I'm not sure how we can stress that point, though. --Masem (t) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of sidenotes. From what I've seen, only a small fraction of new articles go through AFC. Also I'm not sure what you meant by "This is not something we want AFC/Page Patrollers to decide". Of course, any editor can nominate an article for speedy deletion or the AFD process, including new article partollers. But beyond that, nominating articles for that when appropriate is expressly defined as a responsibility under that process. Finally, repeating the structural note that I opened with, the first 10% of this guideline is structurally something broader than just notability, it is Wikipedia's main "merits an article?" definition. It utilizes the last 90% of this guidleine, the SNG's and wp:not in that definition. For example, it puts the last 90% of this guideline and the SNG's in their place.....for example saying that neither is binding because each could bypass the other.North8000 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to get at is that AFC should be more forgiving on articles getting onto WP, at best rejecting articles using criticism only slightly more stricter than the CSD (eg we want AFC to kick out selfpromotion, unsourced BLP, etc.) and let articles have a chance to grow, and let PROD/AFD handle weeding out the articles that really don't have the chance. --Masem (t) 01:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

So most of the sampling in the list has these attributes:

• A "derived" topic that will tend to make many articles out of one article. E.G "The XXXX year of the XYZ type election in ABC location" or "The xxxx year participation of the ABC team in the ABC league" or the "XXXX year participation of the XYZ country in the ABC song contest"
• They have one sentence of text and are never going to have more than one sentence of text. And then the rest of the article is data & statistics
• Sourcing given does not satisfy wp:GNG. But one could credibly argue that it probably exists somewhere
• Is in a gray area at wp:not but is not stopped by wp:not because wp:not is necessarily squishy on this

A guess is that there are about 300 per day of these going into Wikipedia (getting passed or autopatrolled). Maybe having a million of these articles in Wikipedia is a good thing. If not, a note in the opening 5% of this guideline (which is not just about wp:notability) is a good way to help. Which was to add the following to #2: " Add the following to it: "Extra consideration should be given to topics which easily comply with wp:not, and extra scrutiny given to topics which only marginally comply with the policy." North8000 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment in passing about the elections articles: my own, perhaps curmudgeonly, view is that *all* elections of public officials *anywhere*, that are reported by reliable sources, ought to be documented in WP. This is a case where NOTPRINTENC is the decisive factor: the idea that some electoral results are "notable" or "encyclopaedic" and some are not strikes me as ethnocentric (since those making this argument at deletion almost never consider non-English language coverage when they discuss notability) and a complete misunderstanding of what an online encyclopedia is, or can be.

What seems to me less obvious, in such cases, is what level of geographical detail should be used to organize these electoral results, and that might depend on both the levels in scholarly studies of electoral outcomes and those used by journalistic sources. But I would defend a strong presumption of notability to prevent any governmental election result anywhere from being deleted as content, either through Notability arguments or as UNDUE (in content discussions within articles). Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The election results is the type of thing we likely need a site-wide RFC to deal with. Obviously a national-level election we're keeping, but we're not going to keep the election results for the council for a town of 5000 people. That WP contains elements of an almanac is part of why we can keep them but yes, there's a level of resolution that is too far for a global encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 14:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that this is an almanac issue. In many jurisdictions, municipal elections are important political indicators, and I would argue strenuously that their prominence in sources (which some people here want to equate with Notability or DUE) is less a measure of their actual significance than of the richness of the media environment in which they take place. I would argue that UK local elections are not more encyclopaedic than those in, say, Nepal, just because they are more frequently covered and analyzed. Obviously the quality of available analysis will differ depending on whose municipal elections are under discussion, but including by default all reliably sourced results and then building out to the level of sourced analysis available seems much more appropriate to me than unnecessary, ethnocentric pruning of content, which runs totally counter to the pillar of PRESERVE. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the "because coverage probably exists" takes the ethnocentric pruning out of the equation. So then the underlying questions remain. Whether it be via :wp:notability, wp:not or a combination of them, do we want "data only" articles in Wikipedia? Also, by their nature, most of these are "derived" topics as described above which there will be millions of. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it's possible to answer that question in such general terms. As we've seen in this discussion, there are different kinds of "data only" pages, some worth including and some not. If, as you say, there are millions of potential pages, then we'll need to break that concept down into more specific terms before we can answer. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

At some point, some of this is just data and could go over to WikiSource, rather than articles here, particularly if there's little prose to attach to them. --Masem (t) 16:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Well that really isn't happenning. The question is whether the Wikipedia's meta-policy for the existence for articles (which is placed at the beginning of this guideline) or wp:not should be modified to achieve that. (I didn't mention wp:gng or wp:sng's because neither of them has the power to exclude an article) North8000 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not defending data-only pages in principle; I believe many of them should not exist (viz. local and most collegiate athletics results). But in some cases - such as municipal election results and pandemic deaths - I think systematic coverage to include and provide a framework for data in an organized way (geography in this case) should be constrained by the availability of reliable information and not by the quality of secondary commentary (which can develop over time and may be in other languages or behind paywalls). At what level this information should be organized- in these cases, at what level of geography - may depend on the specific domain, but I would like to see a presumption of inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

But that said, local elections may be outside the scope of what WP is suited to cover per WP:AUD, and while having that data somewhere may be okay, just having it on WP where we will never be developing it into an article is inappropriate. This is where we need a WMF sister project for data that is public domain or otherwise unburdened by copyright like election results that can be stored and linked to from other sister projects for reference, where there is an ability to group that in a sensible hierarchy of information (geography/year/etc.) and when we can actually use that data on en.wiki to wrap with prose, etc., we can pull from it. Its just having that data sitting in mainspace in en.wiki causes problems with WP:N and WP:NOT that spreads to other areas. --Masem (t) 18:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:AUD only applies to companies and organisations, but agree stat only articles are sub-optimal but local articles with good prose and local refs are acceptable. A while ago I came upon some UKlocal council election results pages with no prose or refs (maybe an external link or two) and moved them to draftspace but they were later recreated in mainspace without improvement so it is a pain, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"A pain" times about 150 per day which is the firehose of these that the folks at new article curation/patrol deal with. (I think my earlier guess of 300 per day of these was high.) With trying to handle over 500 articles per day, they are just waving through these types. The policies/guidelines don't support doing anything else. Most aren't as neutral of a situation as an election, and involve fans of the topic (with sports being the most common) where there is no coverage to build text from but such coverage "probably exists somewhere".North8000 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

While AUD is presently only set for businesses and organizations, the concept should be considered as guidance (But not enforcable) for other topics. A BLP of a town council member documented only to the town's local paper is likely going to a potential AFD target even if written to avoid promotional elements. --Masem (t) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree as it would be misleading for other topics as the link doesn't show the context unless you scroll to the top of the page. There was an RfC or discussion that determined it did not apply to other subjects. I agree about local councillors but there are other areas such as villages, hamlets, historic buildings, high schools etc that would still be included without non-local sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Yes, a bit of a finger on the scale because they are more enclyclopedic.....deeper in compliance with wp:not per my OP. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify once again, Masem, I am not defending the inclusion of articles for which no RS text can be incorporated outside of tables. I believe that for the two examples I have given, Municipal election results and pandemic deaths (and recoveries), it is always possible to move the topic of the article up to a geographical level where there is meaningful commentary to be made, while incorporating tabular data at more detailed levels. The fact is, I can't be the only one who finds WP a more convenient platform to look at the electoral careers of politicians and constituencies than the mishmash of government sources, and commentary about the elections presented beside the tables, and drawing on the best available sources with DUE balance, is exactly what I (and many others) require for this dilettante interest. And the same for pandemic statistics with their requisite RS interpretation and commentary. And unlike local sports, local politics and regional epidemics are undoubtedly of encyclopaedic interest; per NOTPAPER, I see no reason not to include them (particularly as AUD does not apply). Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If an article exist in other Language, can it be considered notable?

Title says it all, thanks in advance. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 07:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Different Wikipedias have different standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC).

• Not necessarily. Firstly, there are articles on this wiki that aren't notable, because they have escaped notice. It stands to reason that there would be unnoticed and unmaintained articles on other wikis as well. Secondly, every language wiki has its own inclusion rules. It's quite possible for a topic to be considered notable at some other wiki but not fulfill our requirements. Reyk _YO! 08:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

NO as Wikipedia (in any language, or any wiki) is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Others have answers above, but I will add, do check the sources that the other language wiki has provided, keeping in mind en.wiki does not require English language sources, only that they are reliable, and see if the GNG or an SNG can be met. --Masem (t) 14:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

LISTN's applicability to Leicester churches issues

Discussion at new/ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglican churches in Leicester and in three related closed AFDs has perplexed some about what wp:LISTN requires or allows about list-articles. User:Epiphyllumlover has some very good faith objections, I think (please speak up). My characterization of the issue: There were several bad list-articles of Baptist churches in Leicester, Methodist churches in Leicester, etc., which were mere directories listing 40 or 50 names and addresses of some current and past churches. I think the churches listed came from an available online database of current and past churches in Leicester (itself clearly a directory, only, with no substantial info besides locations). AFDs about the list-articles brought up an unusual amount of conflict. Due I think to the existence of several published scholarly-type articles, several being by author Rimmington, which seemed, at least superficially, to be spot on about the topics. However, IMO the Rimmington articles and the like provided nothing valid to build a list-article about churches; the Rimmington articles included statements similar to "there were 20 Methodist churches in Leicester by date X", but no useful information about those churches to cover in a list-article. And Rimmington's articles, whose publication at all seems to be an odd/weird accomplishment, themselves emphasize that there is nothing special at all about Methodist churches in Leicester or about Methodism or Methodists in Leicester; to me they seem like odd, too-local exhaustive catalogues of info. We don't publish exhaustive recapitulations, or even summaries, of exhaustive catalogues such as, say, car-model-specific parts lists and repair manuals. Also, no useful or usable information available anywhere else about the churches could be turned up, besides for one or a very few of them that happen to be listed buildings. Therefore IMO the few notable ones can have articles, and those can be linked from Leicester article and from already-existing, big, denomination-specific list-articles such as List of Methodist churches, but IMO we don't want a separate list of the very few notable ones, nor do we want the laundry/directory-type lists of 40 or 50 non-notable ones. There is no need to help readers to navigate, either, because there is no there there.

The LISTN section of this page currently states:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

Here, the Rimmington sources do seem to mention the group or set of "Baptist churches in Leicester" or whatever, so LISTN would seem to imply that a list-article is justified. But, there's nothing to say! There are no sources to build a list-article! Usually, at least for many many list-articles that I have developed, there is plenty of info/detail available about individual examples/items for the list-article (e.g. the items which I put into List of fire stations, say), and there is only some question whether the set or group is a thing. So a source like Rimmington would sometimes be nice to have available, to support the group being a legitimate thing. Does wp:LISTN need to be modified to clarify that discussion as a group does not suffice to justify having a list-article, if there is no substantial content for the list-article? --Doncram (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that we have to recognize that church would fall into the classification of WP:NORG and as such, no church is inherently notable, and list of churches in a city/town is equivalent to a listing of a type of business for that town. A list of notable churches would be reasonable (and whether that needs a standalone or not depends on how many, a city like London may need a standalone), but listing all churches regardless of notability would fail NORG and NLIST. --Masem (t) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a clarification, but rather a dramatic shift in policy. There's never been a requirement that individual entries in a list individually meet LISTN; the requirement rather applies to the topic of the list. If there's a concern that the sources cited for individual entries in the lists are not sufficiently reliable, that's potentially a serious issue, one that could indeed make the list nonviable if a large number of entries can't be substantiated -- but not a LISTN issue per se. -- Visviva (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi--first, thank you to Doncram for going to this effort. I want to clarify several things. My particular objection was with respect to the "Baptists" article and not the "Methodists" article. Also, I am nearly certain that each of the churches in Leicester lists came from UK National Heritage survey data. If it was merely a directory, only one denomination would have a list article. I get the impression that the government lists any and all churches, even closed or torn-down ones, yet gives each entry status as an element of National Heritage. There are many such lists on WP, such as List of National Historic Heritage sites of Brazil. Potentially the bar for inclusion is pretty low in Great Britain for churches-but I am just speculating. In the US, nearly any church which has had the same building for 50 years or more actually does qualify for the National Historic Register, but few are listed because it takes a bit of effort and most churches don't bother. It seems that the UK is more bureaucratic than the United States and they do the work themselves (this is speculation-I don't know this for a fact). I've noticed that many of the list articles for parks and historic buildings or sites start out as a near copy-and-paste from a government database, but then are annotated and blue-linked more as time goes on. Some of the churches in Leicester articles were developed more than others, and it seemed that there were people willing to do some work on it. So in short I don't think the lists were directories per the definition typically used on WP. As a result it comes down to a question of whether the topic is notable, and that is where I made my objection to the clarity of the NLIST guideline.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

A relevant discussion on notability of fictional characters can be seen here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

American Physiological Society "Living History" subjects

The American Physiological Society has published a number of profiles in their journal on "Living History" subjects, "to recognize senior members who have made extraordinary contributions during their career to the advancement of the discipline and profession of physiology". These include:

• Clark M. Blatteis - Clark M. Blatteis
• Elsworth R. Buskirk - Elsworth R. Buskirk
• G. Edgar Folk, Jr. - G. Edgar Folk, Jr.
• Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen - Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen
• F. Eugene Yates - F. Eugene Yates
• Carl Gans - Carl Gans

Half of these are missing articles. Can we reasonably assume that the subjects of these profiles are notable? BD2412 T 19:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably better asked on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics), as that standard rather than GNG would more reasonably apply to these people. For GNG, we need multiple sources, this is a single source, and so we cannot reasonably assume that another one exists. But for WP:PROF, it looks like (at least judging from the ones you linked and their citation records on Google scholar) these have all been selected as people who made significant contributions to their discipline, enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I'll move the question there. Thanks! BD2412 T 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Notability for Lists

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.

My question is: the sources containing a list are not complete and the editor who creates the article (Wikipedia list) will have to do Original Research to complete the list. So is that a problem? Do the reliable sources have to include all the elements in the list? Or maybe I can do some Original Research to find more elements to add to the list? Avram25 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We want the list definition to be something that is recognized as a reasonable list in sources, even if the list is not fully defined by sources. By way of example, List of biggest box-office bombs is a good list. What a box office bomb is well defined, that some films come out as box office bombs are well defined, but there is no definitive list of box office bombs, but our list assembles the best sources to assure we're considering what likely the biggest box office bombs. Is this original research? To a degree, but it is the type of original research allowed under our general research allowances and WP:CALC purposes. If we choose a list that wasn't supported by a natural sorting mechanism... say, "List of films featuring Ford vehicles", even though this can be demonstrated by simple observation of the primary source, this would be original research and the list considered non-notable because noone has considered this as a notable facet of films.

No single reliable source has to include all elements of the list, but all elements of the list should be sourced to reliable sources (moreso MUST when they are BLPs). --Masem (t) 21:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As a second example, List of commercial failures in video games (a list I have worked on so I'm biased) is based a large amalgamation of sources, and we on the talk page have set certain requirements to say when items can be included, but this is based on the fact that there are frequent articles in RS that lists subsets of video game products that have been commercial failures, so we're adding in pieces as new ones are identified. But here its important that consensus is part of that discussion, no one editor can railroad inclusion and not without sources to justify. --Masem (t) 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks. All the reliable sources must be lists? Otherwise can you add elements that are not listed in lists in reliable sources? (In other words, can you add an element that is mentioned in a source without being presented as part of a list?) - Avram25 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No they do not normally, but that might vary from list to list. Elements can be added from a source that only talks about that element that clearly shows that the element belows to the list, as long as the inclusions requirement for the list are met by that source. When we have lists like that, we'd like to see notability related to the overall concept of the list - eg this would be the case of the box office bomb being a notable concept above. --Masem (t) 23:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Say a source talks about movie X, pointing that it's a box bomb. Since the source doesn't mention it as part of a list, then you can't add the movie X to the list?

Say you find an asteroid that bears a Bulgarian name. It is sourced (at nasa.gov) but it's not mentioned as part of a list anywhere. Is it ok to add it to Bulgarian names in space? - Avram25 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a little harder, as first you'd have to show the name is strictl Bulgarian, or alternatively that the object was named for a specific Bulgarian entity. Just because an object bear a name that appears to be Bulgarian does not mean the object was named for a Bulgarian. --Masem (t) 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: That's not a problem, the asteroid is named for sure after a Bulgarian entity - for example this one. From your answer I understand that you would add it to the list, because it's certain it's a Bulgarian name. Therefore, once there is at least one source to talk about that kind of grouping (Bulgarian names in space), it's ok to do OR and to add more items to complete the list. Because it is considered a general research allowance, like simple math calculations. Avram25 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As asked above: will have to do Original Research to complete the list. It seems to me that OR for finding list content is fine, as long as the content itself is not OR. Similar to the way OR is allowed on talk pages, to decide if something should go into the article. That is, indirect OR but not direct OR. Gah4 (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

red links

If we find red links to non-notable subjects should we unlink them or remove them? Gah4 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to remove the information; non-notable subjects can still be mentioned in articles about notable subjects. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, it is two questions. The specific case that I noticed was related to chemicals that may or may not even exist. I could unlink them and leave them in, if they fit in the article, but weren't notable for articles. In this case, they aren't especially needed if they aren't notable, but as noted, other things might be. Gah4 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you earnest believe that the red link represents a valid topic that is notable that someone simply hasn't written an article about , you can retain the links. Otherwise, then yes, remove them. --Masem (t) 13:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Create a policy for Gods and religions?

Ever since I started participating in deletion discussions, I thought of something new. Some religious figures and beliefs are not sufficiently notable, or only rely on one source, and can't be on Wikipedia. I was thinking the new policy about Gods and religions. Kori (@) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, it's best for policy discussions to follow best practices. Trying to prescribe a high standard is something editors might not be ready for, no matter how well-intended. You can demonstrate best practices by showing lots of good or featured articles that follow what you're going for, as well as lots of deletion or merger discussions that reduced the trivia. If you're finding that you want to improve a practice that is still under debate, it's worth going through the painstaking discussions with relevant wikigroups. Some wikigroups even have their own internal guidelines, which is a good place to start advancing a call for quality. Truthfully, I think you'll find that any religion with any sufficient history will have plenty of reliable sources about even their most minor gods. The issue is finding the sources, not the articles as they are currently written. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember seeing a discussion about this recently, can't remember which discussion board and don't have time to dig through the archives right now. At any rate, the gist of that conversation IIRC was that there are so many religions, with wildly varying levels of coverage in academic sources, that there really isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to the notability of aspects of mythologies other than just following general guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If we need one - I don't know if we do - a key point needs to be made that the central religious texts (eg the Bible) themselves are primary with respect to these figures, despite their importance to their religion. Obviously, for the big religions this won't be an issue as there's lots of scholarly study (both as a historical and theological standpoint, both acceptable), but its when we get to the weirder ones like the Jedi religion or Flying Spaghetti Monster... --Masem (t) 19:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There has actually been a fair amount of serious scholarship written about the “flying spaghetti monster. But, yeah. As to the idea of a separate notability guideline for gods and religions... no need... just apply WP:GNG. Has the topic been covered by Independent secondary sources? If yes, then it is notable enough. If not, then it isn’t. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there's some actual scholarly works for the weird religions. Do agree that in general the GNG is sufficient, though I could see a few cases of some churches falls into NORG if they are small breakout factions just to avoid weird promotional stuff too. No need to make anything in guidelines for this, just common sense. --Masem (t) 13:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the GNG is entirely adequate to cover it. If it's some novelty thing some guy wrote about on his blog, that isn't notable. If there's been substantial reliable and independent coverage of it (even for silly stuff like Pastafarianism), then we can write an article based on those references. I don't see any need for a subguideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be my concern, we do not want articles on the religion of "Soddoff the greatest man who ever lived" that consists of Sodoff his dog (who might well be called Colin) and some knackered old chicken".Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that depends. If a bunch of reputable sources see fit to cover Sodoffism, there is no reason Wikipedia shouldn't follow their lead. We follow, not second-guess, reliable and independent sources. If they've decided something is notable, then it is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, as did the person I agreed with. Of course if RS cover it so do we. But I do not see a need to special polices for religion (after all what would it be other then "Does not have to meet GNG".Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree to let wp:GNG cover it, without creating a SNG. Probably a bit of the unwritten common sense that gets applied also counts. If it has been around for a thousand years, at new article curation I just look for enough sourcing to establish that and that it is covered, which is a bit lower bar regarding in-depth secondary source coverage. If I ran into a neologism that somebody is trying to get established and get established as being religious by having a Wikipedia article, then I think that GNG should be fully applied. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds far too much like common sense for it ever to be followed by those Wikipedia editors who prefer criticising other people's work over doing any themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that the "common sense" that I referred to is letting two considerations weigh in in a way that I think should be incorporated into Wikipedia guidance. One is letting "to what degree is it "enclyclopedic?" enter into the equation. The other is to dial in for the fact that a more thorough job will be done on "working" wp:notability when it is likely that an editor has something to gain by the work on the article. I.E. if it's a neologism being promoted, the reference list more likely represents the world (the internet) having been already scoured for wp:gng-suitable coverage. Less so for a 1,000 year old religious figure. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think GNG is inadequate. Your reason seems to be that some articles only have one source and aren't notable; doesn't GNG take care of that? Ikjbagl (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)