Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albemarle Gallery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rationale for deletion focused on lack of sources and reliance on primary and unreliable sources. Users in favor keeping the article presented sources including The Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times which are independent RS giving the gallery significant coverage. This allows the subject to pass GNG. Valoem talk contrib 08:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albemarle Gallery[edit]

Albemarle Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see any reason why this recently established gallery is in any way notable, a feeling that is reinforced by the fact that the article relies upon the gallery's own website. Kasmins or White Cube it aint. TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Operating since 1986" is not "recently established"! It's older than White Cube, if not quite as starry. Wider refs would be good. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is not when it was established, but the fact it does not have any reviews or information about it activity. Article is overlinked, but most of them lead to the gallery website itself. Almost all the information I've found about it is related to the artists, exhibited in it and while many of them are notable, the notability is not inherited. For art gallery I expect to see some in-depth independent reviews or/and articles and not dozens of passing mentions, like "this artist also exhibited in Albemarle Gallery". Unfortunately I didn't find it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arthistorian1977—you say "For art gallery I expect to see some in-depth independent reviews or/and articles and not dozens of passing mentions, like 'this artist also exhibited in Albemarle Gallery'." It is unlikely that art galleries will be subject to "in-depth independent reviews or/and articles" separate from the exhibitions they hold and the artists in those exhibitions. This is not a reason for us to not have articles on art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. It's true that gallery by itself is just a walls and roof, but as an institution, every gallery is notable as an institution and not a premise, where works of art are shown. For example, if I take a hall and exhibit works of Damien Hirst there, it does not make the hall a notable place. But if I take a hall, add a curator, who will generate a buzz, leading to articles, explaining in-depth why this specific exhibition is notable in conjunction with works of Hirst, this adds to the claim of notability. Take for example, every gallery from this list Category:Contemporary art galleries in the United Kingdom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are shitty galleries—no doubt. This is not such a shitty gallery. They have mounted a considerable number of shows of what appear to be original work by what appear to be relatively unknown artists. I think the number of unknown artists whose work is shown is more indicative of the quality of the gallery and therefore the rationale for our hosting an article than the number of highly-known artists. A not unimportant function of some galleries is finding talent, not providing a roof and walls for already established artists. Furthermore notable art critics give talks at this gallery. That serves an educational purpose not unlike that of museums. Here we have Brian Sewell talking at Albemarle Gallery and here we have Edward Lucie-Smith talking at Albemarle Gallery. The stature of such critics leads me to understand that the gallery is of some substance. Consequently we should want to have an article on such an art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could be notable but its reliance on primary sources and its promotional tone make it wholly unencyclopedic. DrStrauss talk 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine/24 non-primary sources Nine (quite a number) out of 24 citations are not self-sourcesNeuralia (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after removing Weebly, Saatchi Art and Other non- WP:RS sources, I see zero good sources. It's all fluffy promotion. Nothing of note in Google books/Google news. To be fair, this is to be expected. There are very few notable small galleries in the world. Under 50? The gallery itself is not what usually creates notability: it's the artists inside that are notable. As I say below, that notability is not inherited by the gallery, at least in WP world. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleven notable artists exhibited in the gallery Wikipedia biographies of eleven notable artists acknowledge exhibitions at this gallery Neuralia (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited.104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED. Galleries host shows of the works of artists. These components are barely extricable from one another under commonplace circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An art gallery is an institution. This is not a "recently established gallery". That is a lengthy time ("operating since 1986") for a gallery to continuously be showing works of contemporary art. Absence of critical recognition for the gallery itself is not necessarily a negative mark against the institution. Yes, we have a policy of WP:NOTINHERITED and it doesn't strongly apply here due to the almost inextricable relationship between artists and the art galleries in which their work is most commonly encountered by the public. I count at least 9 artists with articles on Wikipedia that have shown their artwork at this gallery. I think even the long list of artists that have shown at this gallery that do not have articles on Wikipedia constitute an argument for Keeping this article. I think institutions with as deep a root system as this warrant an article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the same nine artists buy their canvas from Acme Canvas company, is it notable too? Per Policy the only way to establish notability is through published sources. The root system might be miles deep, but if nobody has written about it, then it does not get an article.104.163.152.90 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comparison is of "Acme Canvas company" to Albemarle Gallery. Why is that comparison apt? Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
canvas companies and galleires are both used by notable artists, but are both usually non-notable.104.163.152.90 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two links you provide above unfortunately are of no value in this discussion as they are a)both talks at Abermarle Gallery, and b) published on Youtube. What is needed are sources in news and publishing that confirm its notability through in-depth discussion of the gallery. Those do not appear to exist. (Also, my router seems to have reset. I was 104.163.140.193 before reset) 104.163.152.90 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please point me to the notability requirements for art galleries? Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has come up before. Art galleries are being subjected to unrealistic notability requirements and consequently being deleted. There is an almost symbiotic relationship between art galleries and works of art. Art has to be shown somewhere. Only so much art is public art, and artist's studios are not that often used as exhibition spaces. A large proportion of art is displayed in galleries. The gallery is serving its role if it is used by artists and the gallery-going public. Sources in support of articles on art galleries should be understood to be sources on the other components that use art galleries—the gallery-going public, the artworks themselves, and the artists. Sources are unlikely to focus on the galleries alone. Nevertheless the galleries are notable if utilized by the other components. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If you want to create notability criteria for art galleries, sure, go for it, and then gain a consensus that they're valid. But a symbiotic argument cuts no ice: notability still isn't inherited. Me, I think such an argument is like "Boohoo, there aren't any notability criteria for ice cream stands, so I can't write an article on my favorite corner malt shop" but that's just me. As far as the notability criteria already in place, the subject fails, however much of an "institution" it allegedly is. Nha Trang Allons! 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NukeThePukes—the gallery system includes artists, artworks, and perhaps other components, such as art critics and art curators. An art gallery does not inherit notability from the artists in its shows because the notability of one is part and parcel of the other—as long as they are closely associated. Ditto for works of art closely associated with certain galleries. Please see our Campbell's Soup Cans article: "Irving Blum was the first dealer to show Warhol's soup can paintings ... Blum was shocked that Warhol had no gallery arrangement and offered him a July show at the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles." These components are inseparable. There is no inheritance. The most common arrangement by which the public comes to know about new developments in the art world is by the system that brings together artworks, art galleries, and artists. It is misguided to argue that our policy of WP:NOTINHERITED prevents us from establishing notability for art galleries from closely associated artists, artworks, etc. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stand up, I'm afraid. Some galleries are important because they are instrumental in advancing the careers of important artists. Others are just shops.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Shops" selling what? Stockings? Socks? Rocks? Even the most unremarkable art is subject to the absence of a definition of what art is. Since 1986 this art gallery has been purveying artworks fresh out of living artists' studios. All art galleries are merely "shops". But they exercise the discernment particular to the weird world of art. You are making an artificial distinction between those galleries that are "instrumental in advancing the careers of important artists" and those that are merely shops selling the usual fare of stockings, socks, and rocks. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work, but the abundance on non-self-reported refs found in Google News prove notability. Deletion is a disservice to readers who want to learn about this gallery. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that all of the Google News refs mentioned above are WP:ROUTINE mentions where the Abermarle is mentioned as the physical location of the show, and nothing more. Contrary to the assertion, the Google news mentions tell you absolutely nothing about the gallery on its own-- they just tell you what is showing there. (I'm fomerly 104.163.152.90).96.127.243.41 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct—the Google News mentions tell you nothing about the ventilation systems in the gallery, nothing about the gallery's lavatories, nothing about how frequently the gallery repaints the walls in its exhibition spaces. You say that the Google News hits only "tell you what is showing there." That is normal and expected under the circumstance. Galleries choose art and associated artists. The art that is chosen by a gallery tells you all that you need to know about that gallery. The artwork reflects upon the gallery. The gallery becomes known by the sorts of artwork it generally displays. The physical plant is unlikely to be of much interest to most readers. Sure, exceptions can be found. But we should not delete articles because of an absence of sources commenting on the gallery in isolation from artworks and artists closely associated with that gallery. The gallery becomes known for its discernment, its taste. Types of art are almost limitless. It goes without saying that galleries meet the requirements of spaces in which to display art. Journalists and critics write not about the gallery but rather about the artists and artworks associated with that gallery. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "we should not delete articles because of an absence of sources commenting on the gallery"... actually this is exactly why we should delete articles. Your badgering of every commenter is not helping your case. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gallery appears to have an absence of sources commenting on the gallery. Do you think this article should be deleted? Despite the fact that it has been in operation since 1986? Despite the fact that artists with articles on Wikipedia have shown there? Despite the fact that art critics who have articles on Wikipedia have spoken there? What would you like to see in the way of a source about the gallery? What would the source talk about? My, what lovely lavatories the Albemarle Gallery has? Be realistic. A gallery is its artists. That is the way the "gallery system" works. It is the predominant system. There have been efforts to circumvent the system. There are artist-run galleries. And there are artists who attempt to sell from their studios. There is art in public spaces. One can also try to hawk art on the street. By the way, if you look at articles on art galleries you will see a dearth of sources on the gallery itself. Look at OK Harris Gallery. It was virtually an institution. Our article exists without a vast quantity of sources commenting on the gallery itself. Art galleries occupy a murky world between groundbreaking aesthetic advancement and hucksterism and it is hard to tell the dividing line. The same is true for artists. To me it is blazingly obvious that Wikipedia should take note of an institution that has played in that arena since 1986 with some indications of success. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if you are having trouble with your IP Address, why don't you just get a Username? My only regret is not choosing a dumber-sounding Username. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. If there were an entry dedicated to one exhibition in the gallery, you could claim WP:ROUTINE. WP:ROUTINE is used to exclude regular, non-noteworthy events from entry into Wikipedia. That's not the case here. This gallery is well-cited and well recognized. A full fledged feature article is not a requirement for entry into wikipedia an abundence of citations and notability is. Would you consider nominating the Treaty Room of the White House for deletion? Most of the coverage of the Treaty Room is about things that happened there, not the room itself, and judging from current citations there really isn't much about the room itself. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallery is not well-sited, and that is the problem. virtually all mentions are WP:ROUTINE, or in other words, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The Treaty room mention is bogus. I am sure I could find a thousand good references for the Treaty room that speak specifically about its history and what has happened there. You are also conflating the exhibitions at the Abermarle (which may have been notable and written about) and the gallery itself. Nothing significant has been published about the Abermarle gallery itself. Despite numerous protests that is should be notable because X, Y and Z, we cannot find decent references (the only actualy criteria for notability-- sources) to support the notability of the Abermarle Gallery. This has become a silly discussion. The references simply do not exist to support notability no matter how much the keep votes protest. You cannot argue this place into notability-- you simply need to provide references. Good night. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I had no trouble at all finding significant mentions of the history of OK Harris Gallery, and was able to add six Google Books references in fifteen minutes. Because, simply, it is notable. Search for similar WP:RS for the Albermarle, on its history, who ran it etc, and there is nothing.96.127.243.41 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
96.127.243.41—do you feel that this article should be deleted? Or, are you just playing devil's advocate? Have you done a YouTube search for "Albemarle Gallery"? Please try doing that. Video after video confirms the notability of the gallery. Seriousness of purpose matters. There is no reason to compare this article to the article on Treaty Room. The comparison serves to support the argument that it is not the physical plant that matters. But other than that, the argument falls flat. Instead we should be looking at what we know about the subject of this article. The YouTube videos show at least 2 prominent art critics on 2 occasions giving talks at the gallery. Why does this matter? Connoisseurship is the intellectual underpinning of art. This is important to contemporary art, as well as to art in general. The gallery is being taken notice of, by prominent critics, because the activities that occur there are serious. Aside from the critics, the setting is deadly serious. "Serious" doesn't mean somber. This is a "real" contemporary art gallery. One of the reasons given for deletion is that this gallery is no White Cube. This only shows that someone drank the Kool-Aid. In presenting contemporary art one is always confronted with the question What is art? This is as true of "Albemarle Gallery" as it is of "White Cube". A glance at the YouTube videos shows you right away that this is a fully functioning contemporary art gallery. I never heard of this gallery until a few days ago when I saw this article up for deletion. I'm actually just trying to help you to see what you are doing. You are single-mindedly and wrongheadedly focussed on WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED. There are numerous factors that should guide us on whether or not to host an article on an art gallery. Please see this and this and their associated Wikipedia articles here and here. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
96.127.243.41—you say above "You are also conflating the exhibitions at the Abermarle (which may have been notable and written about) and the gallery itself." The gallery is the exhibitions. The gallery hardly exists separately from the exhibitions and the artworks and the artists. The three factors come together to create a contemporary art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. As I said above, the Albermarle is simply a shop. That its products may be notable does not confer notabity. By way of analogy Super Mashriq, my local corner shop, sells Worcester Sauce. And I don't really think that the exhibitions are truly notable in the way that, for instance, the Armory Show was a notable exhibition. They are simply part of the careers of notable artists.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is imperfect because unlike in the instance of art, we know what good Worcester sauce is, what mediocre Worcester sauce is, and what bad Worcester sauce is. The Armory Show was not an art gallery and the Armory Show took place 100 years ago. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire. We are talking about notabity rather than merit. And I don't think you are familiar with Worcester Sauce; there is no such thing as bad Worcester sauce, although there may be inferior imitators, which are not Worcester sauce. As for knowing what is good, I believe that there are people who prefer Branstons baked beans to Heinz's, just as there are people who think Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst can be considered seriously as artists. When the Armory show took place is irrelevant. It's simplay an example of notable show.TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone—you initiated this WP:RfD. Yet you take this opportunity to say "As for knowing what is good, I believe that there are people who prefer Branstons baked beans to Heinz's, just as there are people who think Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst can be considered seriously as artists." After initiating this WP:RfD you are now weighing in with an opinion on Koons and Hirst. Your expressed opinion on Koons and Hirst is out of place. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the Armory Show took place may be irrelevant but contemporary examples might be more comparable, and the Armory Show was not an art gallery. ("The Armory Show typically refers to the International Exhibition of Modern Art that was organized by the Association of American Painters and Sculptors in 1913, the first large exhibition of modern art in America.") Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you add tincture of formaldehyde to Worcester sauce wouldn't it be bad or at least mediocre? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point but irrelevant. I'd argue that it would no longer be strictly Worcester sauce- incidentally it would be toxic rather than mediocre. TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are ludicrously focussed on "Worcester sauce". Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bus stop, badgering everyone who comes to this AfD with an opinion isn't helpful. Do you think you could just chill out and let this proceed? It's not meant to be a battleground.96.127.243.41 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
96.127.243.41—could you stop complaining? I have asked you questions. I asked you what part the presence of 2 prominent art critics speaking at the gallery plays in your thinking. But you have not responded. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the replies, you will see that Youtube source are not reliable refs. That's basic. I also note that you have been blocked for edit warring and other conduct issues at least a half a dozen times.96.127.243.41 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 96.127.243.41—perhaps I was not clear. I have tried a couple of times to elicit a response from you which would be separate from policy concerns. What I am trying to hear from you is how you reconcile apparent notability with policy-compliant notability. I don't think we are totally bound by policy. I thought our aim was to improve the encyclopedia, and if policy stood in our way, we should ignore it. I've asked you a couple of times how you reconcile the presence of notable art critics speaking at the gallery with deleting the article on the gallery. Aren't art critics an underpinning of the art world, or at least an important component of it? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, this is a situation I have encountered again and again in Wikipedia. With art galleries it is extremely difficult to establish notability. Most reliable sources are about the individual exhibitions, or invited speakers, or curators, not the space itself. Unless there are sources that are about the space itself, it's really difficult to pass WP:GNG. I've tried repeatedly to save articles about art spaces and in most cases failed. Sure, developing notability criteria for art spaces would be wonderful, if someone could argue persuasively that a long-standing institution, with notable exhibitions can bypass WP:NOTINHERITED because of some sort of accumulated notability (if notable artists and notable curators and notable exhibitions are exhibiting and curating and taking place within a space, consistently), then we can revisit this. As it stands, we do not have the requirement flexibility to establish this as notable at this time. If more sources turn up about the space itself that satisfy WP:GNG I would immediately change my !vote. freshacconci talk to me 19:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An art gallery consists of several "stakeholders". There are the owners, the curators, and there are even the loosely affiliated group of artists that gravitate to certain galleries. While the artists' artworks certainly cannot be considered "stakeholders", they certainly are part of the equation. A gallery that shows hyperrealism becomes associated with that aesthetic. When evaluating a gallery for notability we most definitely have to loosen up on the WP:INHERITED requirement because not doing so results in an absurdity. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, Bus stop but we haven't loosened them and this AFD is probably not the place to do it. As I said, I'd be happy to change my !vote but I don't see it at the moment. freshacconci talk to me 20:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERITED is not even applicable. What is an art gallery? What would an art gallery be without art, without artists, without exhibitions? It is the activity that makes it an art gallery. It may consist of nothing beyond shelter from rain and protection from theft. An art gallery consists of the organizational abilities of such people as owners and curators. An art gallery is also the existence of a ready supply of artists and artworks. Quite importantly an art gallery consists of the endorsements of tastemakers such as journalists and art critics. When they write about the exhibitions and the individual artworks, they provide us with evidence of notability. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Freshacconci—I've seen this before also. It's ridiculous. One would think it would have been corrected by now. I've never been to this gallery, but it is obviously a substantial art gallery. There is a snobbishness at work in comparing it to a White Cube which obviously has received greater press coverage. It doesn't matter if it is a "shop", as one editor has pointed out. All art galleries are "shops". One can't be 100% cynical. The artwork derives from a sense of conviction on the part of an artist. Whether it is bullshit or not is not the primary question. The activity is very real. A substantial art gallery warrants an article on Wikipedia. A tremendous amount of activity surrounds an art gallery such as this. That activity is noteworthy. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment to Freshacconci. I don't think precedence has to dictate your vote on this. Just because other galleries were mistakenly deleted doesn't mean this one has to be too. This could be an opportunity to start new precedent that more generously interpret notability to allow valuable entries like this one.Bangabandhu (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 79.71.0.201—thanks for pinging me. Can you please tell me where you feel I have presented an argument that could be construed as a BUTILIKEIT argument? Do you feel that I "like" the art gallery? That would not be the case. Art galleries should be part of Wikipedia's content. GNG fails to recognize that oftentimes there is plenty of good quality sourcing pertaining to art galleries but that sourcing is often about the exhibitions that take place in art galleries. Exhibitions often change on as frequent as a monthly basis. Therefore arts columnists write a new blurb on each exhibition after reviewing it. Editors ought to be able to grasp the particulars applicable to a type of article—in this case our articles on contemporary art galleries. There is often nothing remarkable about the physical space that constitutes such an art gallery. But what is noteworthy are the sorts of artists showcased there—and that is what the journalists and art critics write about. Were the art exhibitions ignored by arts columnists and art critics then it would be perfectly justifiable to not have articles on such galleries. But that is not the case concerning this gallery. Considerable notice is taken on an ongoing basis over a long period of time not only by journalists but also art critics, of the exhibitions taking place at this art gallery. I have zero connection to this art gallery and I don't endorse all art galleries for articles on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source: "Located in Mayfair, London the Albemarle Gallery has a reputation for introducing exciting contemporary painting and sculpture from international and UK based artists. Drawing from an impressive stable of established and emerging artists, the gallery is renowned for its stimulating figurative and hyper-realist exhibitions and its visually stunning sculpture installations. The gallery strives to represent artists whose unique work transcends the aesthetic and challenges the intellect. Many of the gallery’s artists are represented in public, corporate and private collections." The source is "http://www.londonartweekend.co.uk/". Bus stop (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though you will disagree, this source supports the notability of our gallery. It relates to an exhibition held at the gallery. In this source we read "Accompanying the exhibition is a newly published hardback book also entitled The Painted Word with 416 colour illustrations. The text written by the eminent Art Historian Edward Lucie-Smith, focuses on calligraphy, with reference to ancient and contemporary scripts, with a detailed explanation of the concept of the 99 Names of God." The text of the book accompanying the exhibition is written by Edward Lucie-Smith. He is an art critic. I will predict that you are going to argue about INHERITABILITY. But art galleries are generally not focussed on in an isolated way by sources. The center of focus in sources writing about art galleries tends to be about exhibitions. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, what do you mean when you say that the source"supports the notability of our gallery" ? When you write "our gallery", it leads me to believe you may have a COI... (formerly 96.127.243.41).198.58.158.1 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
198.58.158.1—do you disagree with my contention that the two citations provided above show us that the subject (Albemarle Gallery) meets a reasonable reading of our WP:NOTABILITY requirements? In response to your second point, no I don't have a WP:COI. As I've stated I only know of this gallery from this "Articles for deletion" page. If I am arguing passionately, it is because I think it is stupid to delete articles on art galleries, especially contemporary art galleries, due to a quirk in the way sources address them. We can have a discussion about the crux of the matter, if you're interested. Sources normally report on the exhibition activity at such galleries. The galleries themselves recede into the background of much reporting in reliable sources on contemporary art galleries. Reliable sources tend to focus on the activities that take place on the premises rather than the gallery itself. The exciting thing are the monthly shows displaying the work of often thought-provoking artists. Can you tell me why this particular quality of contemporary art galleries should tend to disqualify them from attaining the notability that we require? The application of WP:INHERIT is patently stupid in this instance. Exhibitions at art galleries are their reason for existence. Indeed, to use our language from policy, contemporary art galleries do "inherit" notability from the exhibitions that take place on their premises. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you do not have a COI.198.58.158.1 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find user Bus Stop's passion refreshing, in an encyclopedia project that is more often than not dour, cynical, and short-sighted in terms of what it covers and what it does not, as it covers some 20 year-old's mixtape in greater depth than the biography of a Nobel laureate. It would be airtight to have a profile of the gallery in a reliable source, but absent that, I do feel that a reliable source that discusses a prominent artist's works hosted at the gallery to be sufficient. TheValeyard (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Olivers, Steve (2009-11-14). "Mark Glazebrook - Boisterous figure in the art world who ran the Whitechapel Gallery for a time and promoted the modern at his Albemarle Gallery". The Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

      The article notes:

      On his return to London in 1979 Glazebrook rejoined what was now Alecto Historical Editions, helping Studholme with the launch of its fullcolour edition of Joseph Banks's great Florilegium, the first in 200 years. He then began to deal privately, with a particular interest in modern British painting and drawing, which led him to open his Albemarle Gallery, halfway up Albemarle Street in Mayfair, in 1986. The gallery flourished for a while, in spite of chaotic business methods - one young assistant, on her first day in the gallery, remembered asking to be shown his in-tray, whereupon a drawer stuffed with brown envelopes was pulled open. "And the out-tray?" - that was the drawer below, similarly stuffed.

      Glazebrook had taken on a partner in the gallery, and affairs seemed to settle for a while, but with the onset of the recession, the subsequent break-up of the partnership and withdrawal of his bank's support, Glazebrook was left high and dry and all but bankrupt. The Albemarle closed in 1993, and the house in Bedford Park, which as a young man he had bought with his inheritance, and against which the business was secured, had to be sold.

    2. Fielding, Nick; Brooks, Richard (2001-05-27). "Turner prize poll 'fixed' by gallery". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

      The article notes:

      A TOP gallery and art critic have been caught out after trying to fix a "popular" shortlist of artists for the Turner prize.

      The exclusive Albemarle gallery in Mayfair, London, and Brian Sewell, the colourful critic with the capital's Evening Standard newspaper, used clients' names taken from the gallery's database to promote their choice for the prestigious art prize.

      Few, if any, of the clients were consulted before their names were forwarded as supporters of Stuart Luke Gatherer, one of the gallery's own artists.

    3. Golding, Paul (1990-06-27). "Bring the party to the artist - Galleries". The Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

      The article notes:

      Perhaps the most prolific private view host is the Albemarle Gallery, which has shown and toasted well over 100 artists in the three and a half years since its inception. "But", admits Mark Glazebrook, ex-Colnaghi and one of the Albemarle's directors, "people who want to buy are definitely put off by private views. People who you know want a bit of time and space and really look at the pictures, you ask to come the previous day for lunch."

      Therein lies the difference between the guest and the client. But what about the marauding gate-crasher? Does he or she not pose a problem?

      "I think every gallery has a number of people", explains Glazebrook, "whose social lives seem to revolve around private views. I have certainly thrown some of them out before now people who start telephoning abroad, falling over, smashing glasses but this is exceptional. Anyway, I prefer to err on the side of being welcoming. Private views are a service to the public and I don't grudge it."

      This is not significant coverage, but it can be used to verify information in the article.
    4. McLeish, Euan (1999-06-13). "Scottish artists show up the academy - Exhibition". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

      The article notes:

      Perhaps the venerable institution has sharpened up because of the competition. Just across the road in the Albemarle Gallery, the Royal Scottish Academy, the Scottish equivalent of the RA, is mounting its own summer exhibition in London for the first time.

      The Albemarle event, which was opened by Lord Irvine, the lord chancellor, on Thursday, is truly selective, comprising just 42 works, chosen by the artists themselves. This is the cream of established Scottish talent - as will be immediately apparent to anyone tempted away from the RA.

      This is not significant coverage, but it can be used to verify information in the article.
    5. Beachey, James (2009-12-21). "Mark Glazebrook obituary". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-03-13.

      The article notes:

      Returning to London four years later, he rejoined Alecto and continued to collaborate with commercial galleries on exhibitions exploring aspects of modern British art, before eventually opening his own premises, the Albemarle Gallery, off Piccadilly, in 1986.

      The Albemarle was a victim of the recession of the early 1990s – and, it has to be said, of Glazebrook's chaotic approach to business and an often turbulent relationship with his partner in the gallery, Rodney Capstick-Dale. With its closure in 1993 Glazebrook was forced to sell the family home to cover its debts.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Albemarle Gallery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Allow the user Bus Stop (or other users) to copy the contents and fix the article if they would like, and petition to recreate/resurrect it at a later date. As it currently stands this article reads more like a phonebook listing than something from an encyclopedia. If this gallery has hosted notable events and shows then a history portion should be written that describes them, not just a list of names and don't even get me started on the publication list. If the user Bus Stop had written half as much in the article as in here, this article would likely be fine. It should also be mentioned that the article doesn't even have an active talk page. Endercase (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endercase—According to WP:TEARDOWN (an essay) "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted." Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop It isn't about the fact that it is short, it is about the content. There is no real content to speak of in this article. The current TLDR would be "this is a Gallery that also sells books". It is very likely that you should focus your efforts on changing the article not the users' minds. Endercase (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albemarle_Gallery&oldid=1222059000"