Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Maddox Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't see how this business meets our notability guidelines for companies, nor where we might find enough solid and non-trivial in-depth coverage of it to allow us to write anything much more than the present pathetic stub (for which I take some responsibility). The page was created as an advertisement by an obvious paid editor in violation of our Terms of Use, and Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind. There is also, incidentally, a troubled history of interference from other connected parties, the most recent of which has attempted to blank the page; I don't think we need to let that deter us from deleting it if there is consensus to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - the main claim to notability seems to be the picture of Trump, already well covered at the artist's page. Additionally, I tend to feel any page that is only edited by COI accounts and good-faith editors doing damage control on those COI accounts should be deleted. This isn't policy, but spam made me a deletionist. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 *  Tentatively Obviously keep. —you are once again gutting an article and then nominating it for deletion. You seem to have decided that sources documenting art exhibitions at art galleries do not have the potential to contribute to the notability of art galleries. But this reasoning is flawed. Reliable sources relating to an art exhibition at an art gallery certainly can contribute to the notability of an art gallery. We do not have notability guidelines specifically tailored to contemporary art galleries. You are repeatedly referring to WP:NCORP in these instances. In doing so you are completely disregarding the nature of contemporary art galleries. You've dropped the language of "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" (variations of which you have used in many previous instances) but in essence you are still disregarding the difference between other sorts of businesses and contemporary art galleries. One of the most important differences is that the sources that would support the notability of art galleries are found in the reviews by reliable sources of the exhibitions held at the art gallery. You are removing those sources and then nominating the gallery for deletion. And this does not necessarily involve the policy of WP:INHERIT. The reviews have the potential to confer notability directly on the art gallery. You are incorrectly understanding these reviews as only conferring notability on artists and on artworks. The gallery plays a major role in mounting these exhibitions, not to mention in choosing which artists to select and which artworks to show. I am not arguing pointedly that this article should not be deleted. But you've got to take a rational approach to evaluating the suitability of art galleries. The comparisons to other businesses that you are are repeatedly making are inappropriate. In your edit summary here you are comparing an art gallery to a bookstore. Bookstores are virtually dictated to by forces well beyond their control. But gallerists often make highly independent decisions about what "product" to proffer to the customer. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to see how any art gallery could fail to be notable under this rationale. They all have exhibitions, and doubtless they can all get Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not this again. should really give up on this line of reasoning.  have never found consensus for it, and in fact never bothered to show how it could work in practice when I proposed to them, as an example, an article entirely based on exhibition reviews of very notable artists with minimal mention of the gallery in Draft:Galerie Greta Meert. This cannot work, and it has no chance of finding consensus. It is high time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * —is the WP:STUB form of article acceptable? Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * —I'm sorry but I am unfamiliar with "Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94". Could you please familiarize me with "Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94"? I've restored what had been the Previous exhibitions section of the article as WP:NCORP supports the inclusion of material that involves the "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". And I do not find any of that "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product" taking place on "page 94" or authored by "Phil Space". Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I've been looking for sources, and came across this gem from our friend at the Daily Mail, who describe the owner Jay Rutland (yes, that is a fact we didn't have a citation for) as making "a very dapper appearance in a slick black suit and slightly unbuttoned white shirt". According to the Sun, another of our favorite sources, he's married to Tamara Ecclestone, and he's the brother of Joanne Wheatley. So yeah, there's actually significant, in-depth covergae of the gallerists in profiles like https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-5811925/Tamara-Ecclestone-husband-Jay-really-goes-superking.html where we can see him brushing his teeth in, errr she's wearing Massimo Alba, not sure what he's wearing. But seriously, this has only received significant coverage in the tabloids. Just no. Vexations (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No in-depth coverage about gallery itself in reliable sources.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi —what would constitute "in-depth coverage about gallery itself"? Would that be type of lighting? How many square feet the gallery has? What would it be? Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NCORP: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Vexations (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In many instances there are reviews of art gallery exhibitions published by reliable sources. Would reviews of art exhibitions held by the art gallery constitute "evaluation of the product" per WP:NCORP? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have such a source, show it so we can evaluate it. If you don't have such a source then you're being disruptive. Vexations (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Reviews of exhibitions have been removed in this edit prior to the nomination of this article for deletion. While I have not scrutinized each of the removed references, I see at a glance that some contain citations. The reasoning expressed in the edit summary also shows a non-recognition of an aspect of the policy of WP:NCORP, which says that "evaluation of the product" is a factor to be considered. How can we blithely remove references to "evaluation of the product" and then nominate an article for deletion? The edit summary says "exhibitions are the routine business of galleries, no need to list them here; would we list every book-signing at Hatchards? (or indeed, every book?". So what? The sources that are being removed are potentially evaluating the product, are they not? I picked a source at random, and this is the only source I've looked at. A photographer named David Yarrow is mentioned. I read in the removed source:


 * "'Also on show with Maddox Gallery in Miami will be the engrossing photography of David Yarrow, the world’s leading wildlife photographer. David Yarrow has built a world-class reputation for producing photographs of the planet’s most remote landscapes, cultures and endangered animals. His methods for enticing dangerous animals near enough to his lens for the best photograph include researching which animal is most attracted to which scent and then coating his camera in it as he lays in wait.'"


 * Considerably more is said in that source about Maddox Gallery and the artist and the artwork. I would contend that this constitutes "evaluation of the product". The bottom line, at the very least, is that you can't just remove a list of reviews of exhibitions that have been held at the gallery over the years, and then nominate an article for deletion. That is unfair to the article. Apparently I'm just wasting my breath because I've raised this issue several times in the past.


 * I would contend that WP:NCORP supports the inclusion of material that evaluates the product, and the inclusion of such material tends to contribute to the notability of an art gallery. I will concede that the burying of material in citations is a less-than-adequate means of informing the reader about the gallery. To me, that points to the need to include excerpts from these citations—we need to discuss in the article the reliably-sourced descriptions and evaluations of the artwork the gallery has shown. In general I favor a common sense approach to our treatment of art galleries, especially those covering contemporary art. We are unfairly deleting articles on what in many instances are vital cultural institutions. Before new art reaches museums it passes through art galleries. These scrappy enterprises warrant special consideration and yet our notability guidelines do not specifically address them. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Characterizing the work of artists who exhibit there as "products" of a gallery is tenuous. Do bookstores, theatres, and cinemas inherit notability from media coverage of the things they present for viewing/sale?
 * I don't support the notion that Wikipedia should give "special consideration" to promote "scrappy enterprises" which its editors deem "vital". You know, I happen to regard small independent booksellers and comics shops, family-run taquerías and pizza parlors, and cheap neighborhood pubs and queer bars as scrappy enterprises of great value to society, and the lifeblood of communities and their economies. But I don't think that makes it Wikipedia's responsibility to promote them.
 * Which is a not-a-vote of delete, for the record. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Characterizing the work of artists who exhibit there as 'products' of a gallery is tenuous." Please explain to me why works of art are not the "products" sold at art galleries.


 * "Do bookstores, theatres, and cinemas inherit notability from media coverage of the things they present for viewing/sale? We read in WP:NCORP at WP:CORPDEPTH that "significant coverage" can be demonstrated by "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". Art galleries sell art as their product. Reliably sourced reviews of art displayed for sale in an art gallery constitute "significant coverage" because they include "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product".


 * "I don't support the notion that Wikipedia should give 'special consideration' to promote 'scrappy enterprises' which its editors deem 'vital'. You know, I happen to regard small independent booksellers and comics shops, family-run taquerías and pizza parlors, and cheap neighborhood pubs and queer bars as scrappy enterprises of great value to society, and the lifeblood of communities and their economies. But I don't think that makes it Wikipedia's responsibility to promote them." I agree 100%. I was merely explaining what art galleries are. They discover artists. This can't be said for museums. Museums are generally not scrappy enterprises. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully: I said they are not the products of art galleries -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that as "scrappy enterprises" they should get "special consideration". That view is antithetical to NPOV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If I said that as scrappy enterprises art galleries should receive special consideration in Wikipedia then I stand corrected. I might have misspoken, as that is not the position I hold.


 * As to the question of whether or not artworks sold in galleries are "products" of art galleries—it is my position that in a sense they are. My reasoning here you may not entirely agree with, but the gallerist chooses what art to show. Ninety-nine artists approached the gallerist with works ranging from the representational to abstract to the conceptual to the surrealistic and of those ninety-nine artists the gallerist chose to represent only one of those artists. You may disagree but to me it is obvious that the gallerist chose which "product" to put on display and to place for sale within their gallery and therefore in a sense that artwork is the "product" of the art gallery, obviously shared with the artist. It is not unthinkable that a level of collaboration is attained between an attentive gallerist and an artist. In a sense I reject the absolutist understanding of an artist as an auteur who plots his own path without consideration of the feedback he might receive from others. In short, gallerists sometimes nurture artists and provide guidance. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "If"? You said it. It's right up there, and rather clearly expressed. Geez. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * —what more can I say? I am not pleading for special treatment for art galleries in regard to our policy of WP:NPOV. I misspoke. Should I grovel? I've already said "that is not the position I hold." You have said that this is "antithetical to NPOV" and I agree.


 * Allow me to take this occasion to ask you to please not post your posts in the midst of my posts. There have been two instances of this in the past 24 hours and in each instance I've moved your post to what I hope is an acceptable placement on the page. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like you not to use weaselly post-factual rhetoric like "if I said that" when it's obvious that you did. I'd like you to say "Yes, I wrote that, but I didn't mean it." (I've responded to your points in places I thought would make the referent clearer. But I'll try harder to respond in places that don't place as much of a burden on you trying to remember what your principles are.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, "Yes, I wrote that, but I didn't mean it." Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You guessed right: I disagree with this pretentious, gallerist-fondling twaddle. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * this is the only source I've looked at Really? Perhaps you should actually read the sources before you find a subject notable. Here's the list of all references that were ever in the article.
 * http://artdaily.com/news/100477/Maddox-Gallery--Mayfair-presents-a-new-series-of-work-by-The-Connor-Brothers#.WjjX57SFiV4
 * http://fadmagazine.com/2016/10/30/top-6-art-exhibitions-see-london-week-3/
 * http://hrhcountessofwessex.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/sophie-joins-colombias-first-lady-on.html
 * http://nypost.com/2016/08/16/ak-47-artwork-banned-from-entering-us/
 * http://sabotagetimes.com/life/bradley-theodore-son-of-the-soil-opens-in-london
 * http://wsimag.com/art/22142-retrospective
 * http://www.artnet.com/galleries/maddox-gallery/maddox-gallery-at-art-miami-2017/
 * http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/2675551/works-on-paper-by-the-connor-brothers-at-maddox-gallery
 * http://www.cbsnews.com/news/controversial-nude-donald-trump-painting-now-on-display-in-london/
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3398931/Starting-early-Tamara-Ecclestone-cuts-chic-figure-tailored-jacket-thigh-high-boots-daughter-Sophia-shop-pricey-artwork.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3430747/Lindsay-Lohan-goes-relaxed-look-leggings-asymmetrical-supports-photographer-pal-Tyler-Shields-exhibition.html
 * http://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/39950/1/catching-up-with-mr-brainwash-the-artist-who-out-banksyed-banksy
 * http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/gq-men-of-the-year-winners-2017
 * http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/david-the-untouchables-exhibition
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-chaundy/dan-baldwin-art-influence_b_12361058.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-chaundy/eden-by-simafra-maddox-ga_b_14490840.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-moon/how-do-artists-collaborat_b_12082032.html
 * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/banned-nude-donald-trump-artwork-be-displayed-first-time-londons-maddox-gallery-1553647
 * http://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/maddox-gallery-retna/4594063458
 * http://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/son-of-the-soil-the-first-uk-solo-exhibition-by-bradley-theodore-at-maddox-gallery/
 * http://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2016/11/17/secret-art-on-a-postcard-auction/
 * http://www.luxurylondon.co.uk/article/disseverance-maddox-gallery-chris-moon-robi-walters-interview
 * http://www.luxurylondon.co.uk/article/james-nicholls-maddox-gallery-the-art-q-a
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/john-terry-made-in-chelsea-10258935
 * http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/diamondencrusted-donald-trump-artwork-bought-by-collector-an-hour-after-going-on-show-in-mayfair-a3444811.html
 * http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/nude-donald-trump-painting-illma-gore-lawsuits
 * http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/donald-trump-penis-painting-ilma-gore
 * http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/43382677-maddox-gallery-opens-in-mayfair-at-maddox-gallery
 * http://www.vogue.in/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-second-edition-of-bahrains-art-fair/#david-risley-and-bradley-theodore
 * https:///www.worldcat.org/issn/0307-1235
 * https://howtospendit.ft.com/art/202472-leading-london-art-gallery-opens-with-a-bang-in-gstaad
 * https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/david-yarrow-wildlife-photographer-goal-take-four-good-photos-year/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/artists/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/artists/retna-margraves-october-2017/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/events/maddox-gallery-westbourne-grove-launch-night/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/maddox-gallery/about/our-curator/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/news/maddox-gallerys-james-nicholls-announced-guest-art-critic-london-live/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/press-release/bradley-theodore-second-coming/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/press-release/countess-wessex-colombias-first-lady-visit-maddox-gallery/
 * https://maddoxgallery.co.uk/press-release/maddox-gallery-sponsor-artist-category-gq-men-year-awards-2017/
 * https://nypost.com/2016/08/16/ak-47-artwork-banned-from-entering-us/
 * https://www.artrabbit.com/events/autumn-contemporary
 * https://www.barnebys.co.uk/blog/article/10506
 * https://www.barnebys.co.uk/blog/article/10506/
 * https://www.barnebys.co.uk/blog/article/7747/looks-like-donald-trump-will-be-spending-the-summer-in-londo/
 * https://www.barnebys.com/blog/article/11706/danny-minnicks-one-love-at-maddox-gallery/
 * https://www.barnebys.com/blog/article/8719/maddox-gallery-raises-over-245-000-for-caudwell-children-and/
 * https://www.caudwellchildren.com/maddoxgalleryauction/
 * https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/660300/teenage-cancer-trust-va-exhibition-the-adoration-trilogy
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2017/09/15/12-breathtaking-wildlife-photos-from-david-yarrows-new-london-and-paris-exhibitions/#17641fc94d38
 * https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/goodie-bags-men-of-the-year-2018
 * https://www.nme.com/news/music/jeremy-corbyn-stormzy-gq-awards-2134599
 * https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/arts/mr-brainwash-interview-i-feel-like-i-was-a-good-part-of-banksy-s-life-a3816876.html
 * https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/how-bradley-theodores-mural-of-karl-lagerfeld-and-anna-wintour-made-him-the-alists-favourite-artist-a3512446.html
 * https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-artist-reveals-dismay-as-ak47-artwork-is-banned-from-entering-us-a3321001.html
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/art/seven-opie-figures-go-five-figure-sums-american-sales-attract/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/nude-donald-trump-painting-illma-gore-lawsuits
 * https://www.themayfairawards.co.uk/winners
 * https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1820451/artist-lincoln-townley-dubbed-the-new-warhol-reveals-paintings-of-worlds-leading-supermodels/
 * https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-artist-donald-trump-penis
 * https://www.we-heart.com/2016/10/17/dan-baldwin-under-influence-maddox-gallery/
 * I think you'll find upon evaluating them that there were good reasons many of them were removed. --Vexations (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * —there is a big difference between an article that needs to be improved and an article that should be deleted. I would contend that we've seen articles on entirely notable galleries of contemporary art, deleted in these processes. Who is going to recreate those article? Notability is satisfied because in keeping with WP:NCORP we have extensive "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". If you disagree with that, then that is what we should be discussing. Yes, I picked a random source. It was this source. Do you disagree that that source contains discussion, analysis, and evaluation of the product? Let's look at another source. How about this one. The Guardian is a source of impeccable quality. The subtitle is "Illma Gore’s painting, on display at Maddox Gallery in London now with a £1m pricetag, depicts the Republican presidential candidate with a small penis". That is a discussion of the product on display (and for sale) at the Maddox Gallery. Also contained in that citation: "Cordelia de Freitas, Maddox gallery director, said: 'It only really got out of hand when Donald Trump referenced it in a debate, which sums up Trump and his ego. From there, everyone wanted to see this image.'" There are several more Guardian citations in the list that you posted above. Thanks for compiling them all in one place. In my opinion the first order of business is rescuing this article from deletion. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I regret that based on your not actually reading the sources prior to forming an opinion on the notability of the subject, I cannot take your contributions to this AfD seriously. You're just trying to make the same flawed argument that you've been making elsewhere that exhibition reviews can establish the notability of art galleries. It doesn't. You're misreading "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." to give you license to include https://www.artrabbit.com/events/autumn-contemporary as a source for Autumn Contemporary - Group exhibition. That is absurd. It's a press release. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , just to point out that you're incorrectly interpreting the use and context of the word "product" as it is used in WP:NCORP. The use of the word "product" applies when the topic of an article in question refers to a product and not an organization/company. Read the first sentence of WP:NCORP. Since the topic in this instance is the art gallery, then we need references that discuss the gallery. References that discuss the product fail the criteria for establishing notability (as per WP:NOTINHERIT).  HighKing++ 14:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and expand, per arguments and reasoning made by User:Bus stop. Sources are generally reliable, and gallery is notable per WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Coldcreation (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. We either have articles discussing the exhibits (which fail as per WP:NOTINHERIT, articles that are mentions in passing (which fail as per WP:CORPDEPTH) or articles where the sources are connected with the gallery (which fail as not being "intellectually independent" and fail WP:ORGIND). I'm happy to revisit my !vote if/when at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found, but I'm unable to find even one.  HighKing++ 14:25, 19 September 2018 (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.