Talk:Gallery Nature Morte

name drops
, you removed the name rattling added without sourcing of any sort. I removed the name checking per WP:BURDEN. The same user added it back with sources, but the sources only show a roster of people of who edited those two issues of magazines and I am not sure if it is WP:DUE in the context of this article and how the information is presented and I vote that we omit it. Do you have any preference? Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The cited sources show a roster of artists involved in the Gallery Nature Morte scene, not just the editors of those two issues of the magazine. This Gallery Nature Morte citation issue began with the reversal of my Peter Nagy edit because of supposed insignificance. In 2014 Richard Milazzo authored the book "Peter Nagy: Entertainment Erases History (Works 1982 to 2004 to the Present)" for Eisbox Projects. That alone makes him significant. Put Peter Nagy back as a stand alone artist and you can butcher the Gallery Nature Morte page all you like. If you don't. I will reverse the page again, because you are suppressing art historical information of certified merit. Valueyou (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good grief, not again. I'm already too busy dealing with the slew of deletions in related articles. I'm seriously fed up. For what it's worth, I am not fan, I don't like the work of most of the artists involved, but NM and C&M played an important role in the emergence of a new generation of artists at the time. I'll leave you with a quote from Francesco Bonami : "The hottest couple in the curatorial world of the ’80s were Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo..." Vexations (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

art historical information of certified merit. certified according to? That's to be decided by sourcing and consensus. If it does get reversed back on, but other editors do not agree, I suppose could then send it to AfD and see if consensus forms to keep, vs merge vs delete. Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be mistaken on a number of levels. You don't get to dictate what will or will not be included in the encyclopaedia, though you are free to contribute your opinion to discussion thereof. On Nagy, the "book" you're making such a meal of is in fact not a book at all but an exhibition catalogue, published by Eisbox Projects, which according to page 13 of that work is "a private exhibition space in Brooklyn, N.Y". A show in a gallery that isn't even a gallery does not come close to establishing notability – that requires substantial in-depth coverage in a good number of independent reliable sources. Whether or not Nagy is notable does not determine in any way what content should be included in this page; that needs to be factual, encyclopaedic and properly sourced. A statement such as "The idea of neo-conceptual art (sometimes later termed post-conceptual art) favored by Gallery Nature Morte was clearly articulated by Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo in the early 1980s in New York City" would need a source that actually supports what it says; the New York Times article doesn't say anything of the sort – it's about the somewhat questionable practices of independent curators in general, and Collins and Milazzo in particular. And so on.
 * , my suggestion/preference is that the article be reverted to the last revision by Revirvlkodlaku until this discussion reaches consensus. Valueyou has already pinged, whose opinion I always value; add pings for three other editors with greater experience and expertise in this area than my own: , and , apologies to others who I may have missed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. The Eisenbox source is no good, obviously. I had a look around for sourcing and it seems like there are many profiles (Artnews, Mousse Magazine, Art Review, Art Forum, Flash Art, Asian Art Archive, W Magazine) of Nagy that make a standalone for him appropriate. He also has three works in the Whitney museum collection, which makes a standalone article totally appropriate. This particular article (Nature Morte Gallery) might be more appropriate as a redirect to something, perhaps Peter Nagy (artist).--- Possibly (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have restored the Peter Nagy (artist) article, as he is in two collections (also in the Metropolitan Museum of Art) and therefore meets NARTIST. It was not immediately obvious that he is notable as an artist; he seems to have had a brief career as an artist in the 80s or 90s that fizzled out. I still have my doubts, seeing as if you are a/New York Art dealer, it is a lot easier to get your work into New York Art museums. However he meets NARTIST and this would survive AfD with certainty. As ValueYou has said above that they are amenable to modifying this article (Put Peter Nagy back as a stand alone artist and you can butcher the Gallery Nature Morte page all you like.),  making the Nature Morte article a redirect to Peter Nagy (artist) and incorporating a small amount of Gallery info  there seems like the best solution.--- Possibly (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection from me; it's always easier to meet WP:NBIO than WP:NCORP, so this looks like a path of least resistance. Thanks, ! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree at the least that "the article be reverted to the last revision by Revirvlkodlaku" because everything it currently has in addition to what it had at that point in time, is a tangent on neo-conceptualism that is better located in the article on that subject. That leaves only 3 sources present, 1 of which, by Milazzo, is closely associated with the subject. I'm not convinced the article describes what is notable about the gallery. The only claim toward notability I see rests on who it means when it claims "It was their exhibitions and writings that originally fashioned the theoretical context for a new kind of neo (or post) conceptual art..." Unless someone finds more independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, there does appear to me to be enough to support a stand-alone article on this subject, thus a redirect seems appropriate. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with Lopifalko that the Revirvlkodlaku is a better stable revision than what is up now. I agree with Possibly that Nagy meets N. I think that the Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo section is a coatrack, and repeats what is already on the Collins and Milazzo pages (the Milazzo verbatim, it seems). Most of the Collins and  Milazzo sources only mention Nature Morte in passing. I haven't tag it for merging 9 done the research to determine if Nature Morte does or does not meet N and/or should or should not be a redirect, but I will say that on the one hand that many of the sources from this period are not going to be digitized while on the other hand, NCORP is really strict and unfortunately most galleries fail. Theredproject (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who've responded. I've taken that as consensus and reverted to the last version by . Shall I tag this for merging to the Nagy page, or would someone else like to do that? Thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that we have it condensed down to appropriate length, I'm in favor of merge and redirect, if needed, I can trim further at the destination. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of a merge/redirect to Peter Nagy (artist). That said, the material that exists at the destination is well sourced and encyclopedic. I don't think it needs much of a trim. --- Possibly (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)