Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Plural Gallery


 * 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   no consensus. Feel free to renominate at any given time. SarahStierch (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Art Plural Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just about all art galleries receive news coverage when they host exhibitions to exhibit artworks for sale by artists. It's just part of running an art gallery. Newspapers cover these exhibitions as local events. If art gallery exhibition news coverage were sufficient by itself to meet WP:GNG, then all art galleries world wide could be treated in stand-alone articles. In other words, art galleries would be inherently notable due to the news coverage they receive when they host exhibitions. However, coverage beyond hosting exhibitions is needed to justify a stand-alone article, such as detailed coverage of the art gallery history, detailed coverage of the particular art galleries ability to convince top world artists to display at their gallery, etc. The source coverage on the AfD nominated Art Plural Gallery topic is mostly about their hosting exhibitions to exhibit artworks by artists. Without exhibitions coverage, there is not much that can be sourced about the topic. There is no basis for the topic to be treated in a standalone article. The article was created in March 2013 and largely maintained by CorneliaHTang, who is being discussed at COIN as having an apparent, potential, or actual conflict of interest. Her talk page is littered with notices of deletion, copyright problems, etc. as well as efforts by Justlettersandnumbers and myself to discuss the matter with her. She has had only one user talk page post and that was back in March 2013. I think we reached a point to let consensus determine whether Wikipedia should have an article on Art Plural Gallery -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm in full agreement that consensus should decide the future of this article, and am pleased to see it listed here for discussion. I don't plan to participate in forming that consensus, as I have been involved in identifying the potential conflict of interest and in the deletion of a number of related articles on artists represented by the gallery and do not wish to appear partisan. I have spent what turned out to be an annoyingly large amount of time on attempting to wikify the article. I did not propose it for deletion because of the mentions in Straits Times and the Wall Street Journal SceneAsia, which seemed to me to confer some vestige of notability; but I have no argument with the reasoning presented above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A search for information on Art Plural Gallery did not bring up enough source material from which to comprehensively summarize the Art Plural Gallery topic in a written Wikipedia article. As for the souring in the article, the three Straits Times articles are about exhibitions at the Art Plural Gallery where the Art Plural Gallery only is mentioned in passing in the articles. The first Wall Street Journal Scene Asia blog post was written in connection with the opening of the gallery and notes that art could be bought at the gallery for as low as US$4,700. The second Wall Street Journal Scene Asia blog post only mentions Art Plural Gallery in passing as part of writing about an exhibition of its items for sale. These blogs do not provide enough source material from which to comprehensively summarize the Art Plural Gallery topic. While for sale art gallery exhibits generally receive some vestige of notability through press attention (usually because the gallery notifies the media of the sale exhibitions), the Art Plural Gallery topic has not gained sufficiently significant attention over a period of time that can be used to write a stand-alone Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - slightly surprised to see this at AfD, though the over-enthusiasm of the author to promote the gallery and its exhibitors has backfired and much of the clean-up by Justlettersandnumbers is quite understandable. The fact a gallery in Singapore has been picked up and written about at great length by the US Wall Street Journal clearly points to its significance. It is also an erroneous argument to say that because an art gallery has news coverage about what it does, curate and hold art exhibitions, it is not notable! On the contrary, if organisations are covered by the press for the things they do, for example, (which describes it as "one of Singapore’s most buzzed about new galleries") they meet general notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hope that all the clean-up I have tried to do is quite understandable. But if not, I'm open to discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not enough independent source material to support a stand alone article as per WP:GNG. If there is not enough to write about then there is not enough to write about. The 300 words in blogs.wsj.com about Swiss art dealer Frédéric de Senarclens efforts is not "great length" and the on-line blog write up is only secondarily about the Art Plural Gallery opening event. Wikipedia articles need more than a topic event opening and source material for wikipuffery to be encyclopedic. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You've repeated your point of view at great length and obviously have a very different view of what constitutes 'significant coverage'. Why not sit back and let others have their view too. Sionk (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 08:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete. I see little justification for keeping. It reads like an advertisement: all new galleries arrange for puffs in trade journals. The report by Jane Peterson in the WSJ is rapportage rather than critical assessment, but it is something in the gallery's favour. In London, galleries are reviewed in newspapers by independent critics when they are showing significant sales or exhibitions. That's one thing which makes a gallery noteworthy, plus sales of outstanding artists and a track record of high quality advice to clients (which is admittedly not easy to track in print). Put it this way, if this gallery is notable, then I could name 50+ galleries in central London with track records and reputations that outshine it by far. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sionk. In my judgment, the coverage is significant enough to establish notability. As for the comment above by, please feel to write articles about notable London galleries. That would improve the encyclopedia.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - A lot of the sources in the article don't say much about the gallery itself, but here's one that's not in the article that has information: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4cd0649e-269d-11e3-9dc0-00144feab7de.html#axzz2kX1jXAEW &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, coincidently the same author as the 2011 WSJ article, but a very reputable newspaper all the same. I've added it to the article. Sionk (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.