Talk:Roberto Gagliardi

Untitled
This photograph of mr. Roberto Gagliardi and Margaret Thatcher is copyright free. It has been published in many places in the years, such as on Il Commento a magazine for Italians in England in the April 2013 issue. The editor of the magazine is Mr. Gagliardi himself and the photo was taken by his wife and belongs to their family. Athenaathena07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, no, if the photograph was taken by Signora Gagliardi then – unless she has contractually ceded it – the copyright probably belongs to her. It almost certainly isn't copyright free. Anyway,, the image was hosted on Commons, not here. If Signora Gagliardi wants to donate the image to Commons she can do so by following the instructions here. Following on, if you already knew all this, why did you claim on Commons that the photo was your own work? Do you have some personal or professional connection with the Gagliardis and the Museo d'Arte di Chianciano? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
A number of editors of this article appear to have a close personal or professional connection with the subject, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mrs. Marie Gagliardi just sent the permission form containing the link to a photo of the cover of the magazine in which the photo was published. I was authorised by her, through a mutual friend to say that I had taken the photo to ease the process of publication, even though I wasn't very happy with it. I have no personal or professional connection to the Gagliardi's or to the Museum.Athenaathena07 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , you say that you have no personal or professional connection to the Gagliardi family or to their art collection in Chianciano. I'm having trouble reconciling that with your statement here, "Moreover I have the statute in the gallery. Do you want to come and see it???", which strongly suggests that you do indeed have a close connection. Can you clarify? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OTRS
Ang us  Guilhe rme¶  23:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest – a reminder
There is a continuing stream of promotional and unencyclopaedic edits here from various IP editors apparently connected with or working for the subject. Would those IP editors (if indeed there is really more than one) kindly note that the conflict-of-interest guidance higher up this page applies to both registered and unregistered editors. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability
Removing N tag after scanning the articles that came to the top on this simple news search .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, what exactly do you think your search shows, ? That there are people called Roberto Gagliardi? You appear to have made no attempt to exclude Roberto Gagliardi the politician from Lecco or Roberto Gagliardi the goalkeeper from your search. The notability tag on the article related to this particular Roberto Gagliardi; specifically, the question is whether he has any notability independent of his art museum in Chianciano. If he does not, this page should be redirected to that one. I'll restore the tag in the hope of a more careful analysis. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I ran a simple news search, I then scanned the snippet views of the hits, the first 4 are obviously about this Roberto Gagliardi, one in a paper I know, La Nazione, after that you get hits on a politician and an athlete. I did not go to the 2nd page of the search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I just ran a news archive search in proquest on "Gagliardi Gallery", his London Gallery, now closed. It got significant coverage back in the day. removing that notability tag again.  Article just needs sourcing, expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Finding unspecified coverage of the gallery that uses his surname does not make him notable. I am restoring the tag. Please do not remove it again without agreement.SovalValtos (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to suggest that someone AfD the article, which would likely result in a merge to the museum article. I'm not seeing any significant independent notability outside of the museum, and we normally don't have articles on mere art collectors or museum founders. An AfD would be far preferable to having a notability tag on the article in perpetuity. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on notability I have removed the notability tag because Between the museum in Chianciano and the gallery in London (which I have added a little sourced material to on this page) he does seem to pass notability. You are of, course, free to take this to AFD if the sourcing seems inadequate to you.  I suggest, however, that if you think these 2 articles might be better off merged into one, you start an RFD on this page rather than taking this to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Museo d'Arte di Chianciano Terme looks like a good option to me. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be merged. I've restored the merge tag I put here a while ago, not quite sure why it was removed. Notability of this person remains dubious in the extreme; I'll restore the notability tag again in a moment., when someone says: "Please do not remove it again without agreement", what they mean is: "Please do not remove it again without agreement". Is that something you have difficulty understanding? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I understand notability. I removed the notability tag after adding significant, reliable sources. I  also understand WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The merge discussion should be happening at Talk:Museo d%27Arte di Chianciano Terme, where it was started 5 months ago. E.M.Gregory, you !voted to Oppose the merge there -- if you are changing your !vote, please change it there. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Having re-read the sourcing on both pages, and looked again at sources in the Italian press, I now firmly oppose this merge. The museum and Roberto Gagliardi are notable independent of one another.  I do confess to genuine puzzlement about why 2 editors are so aggressive about this, despite the relatively strong sourcing of both articles, and additional sources available in the Italian press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits – tone, relevance
I removed a good deal of poorly-referenced/ irrrelevant/ unencyclopaedic/ promotional material from this article, to which it was added by. Predictably, it's been stuck back (with some quite unacceptably personal comment in his/her edit summaries into the bargain) into the article, which has thus become a fine example of what we don't want an encyclopaedia page to be. I suggest removing it again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly, take this to AFD, where we can hope that more editors will have a look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Somerset Guardian is a newspaper, albeit a local newspaper, and it is standard to include a link to an art gallery on the owner's page. [gagliardigallery.org Gagliardi Gallery]. The other source I replaced after deletion was an art website .   As in other fields, websites are increasingly significant.  This one . artslant.com, is cited in over 100 Wikipedia articles .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have no source that the gallery is owned by this particular Gagliardi or even owned by any Gagliardi. I accept the gallery website exists; does the London gallery in September 2016? artslant.com shows no evidence of content control or editorial checking of the posted content so does not impress as being a reliable source.SovalValtos (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are 2 articles that source the gallery . E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that he is teh world's most famous gallery owner, only that this marginal article on an art collector, showman, and entrepreneur can be sourced and expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that's one source, a press release from the comune of Chianciano, reprinted by two extremely minor news websites. Nevertheless, we can, I imagine, agree that the gallery exists or existed (it isn't clear which; wrote on this page "... his London Gallery, now closed", but then restored an EL to the website which I had removed based on that statement – is it closed or not?); and that Gagliardi started it. Stuff about the doings of the gallery (an exhibition of drawings by schoolchildren? how is that of encyclopaedic interest or importance?) has no place in this article (which is about a person) unless the sources make clear that that person had some important rôle in it. That irrelevant material should simply be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not the most important art person in the world but I am starting to ask myself to what standard this person being held to?? Am I misunderstanding or did this person personally found a large and important museum (NEW YORK TIMES )? Did he recently purchase 10 closed down shops in the middle of Tuscany and make them into museums to re-launch culture in a medieval town (LA NAZIONE SIENA NEWSPAPER )? Did he found a gallery nearly 40 years ago on the King’s Road in London that is still in operation? (just a little thing they did last December - they provided the art for the Russian Art Week official opening in London ) (also the book related to the Gagliardi Gallery exhibition at the Victoria & Albert Museum is still for sale ) Did this person also found the London Art Biennale that is taking place again this March? Did this person also organise the Biennale of Chianciano that is a free entry show that in 2015 gathered 100 living artists from 40 nations with connected exhibitions spanning over 6 locations (museums, churches and public galleries) around the town with artworks also including artists like Durer, Rembrandt, Toulouse-Lautrec and original drawings by Giorgio Armani. In the 2013 edition, there was also a concert in honour of the 150 year celebration of Mascagni’s birth (composer of Cavalleria Rusticana) held at the Chianciano BIennale with a delegation of his family that included his granddaughter and great granddaughter (the whole event and sources were removed by  and dismissed as puffery!)     also removed the fact and source that this person donated artworks and raised more than £10,000 GBP in a charity auction, that included an original drawing by Andy Warhol, stating the amount was too low for wikipedia (auction reported on EVENING STANDARD ). also removed the vast majority of this person's bio! I totally understand that if a person is not notable they should not be on wikipedia. However, if a person is deemed as notable which I believe is clear (if this person’s contributions to art do not make him notable how high can the bar be??) it is obvious that elements related to his personal and professional life are to be part of the article and cannot just be removed. For example, Gagliardi purchased and returned a Renaissance oil by Palma the Younger to Italy (artist that finished Titian’s “Pieta’” after his death) that had been in the U.K. for more than a century (sourced on SAATCHI ART AND MUSIC MAGAZINE removed by ) or the fact that he supplied 1000 bedrooms through his furniture company to the Kuwaiti Govt’s Islamic conference centre (fact removed by ) or the fact that he supplying the United Nations with furniture (removed by Justlettersandsnumbers). After all the well-sourced and relevant information that was removed now he wants to remove the exhibition against the Mafia as well? I am honestly puzzled too.