Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq


 * 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. Despite the impressive (in a bad way) amount of typing expended on this page, the WP:NOTINHERITED argument and the lack of reliable sources seems stronger. ansh 666 08:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Meessen De Clercq

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to passing mentions / WP:SPIP sources. Created by a SPA with three edits and edited by a sock farm, such as Special:Contributions/Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. Notability is not inherited from the notable artists the gallery has represented. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Suject fails WP:N, never mind WP:NCORP. And socks never help the cause, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an ongoing concern exhibiting artwork in Brussels, Belgium. If we look at the article on Filip Gilissen we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Thu Van Tran we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Adam Henry (artist) we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Bostwick we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Pickering we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Maarten Vanden Eynde we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Jordi Colomer we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Benoît Maire we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Susan Collis we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Ellen Harvey we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on José María Sicilia we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Leon Vranken we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at an article named Brussels Gallery Weekend, we find one of the galleries participating in that annual event is Meessen De Clercq gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I warned them there should be a limit to the use of the copy/paste function. -The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable. However notability is not inherited, even if you repeat the sentence a lot.104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * An art gallery virtually only receives notability from the art exhibitions shown there and from the art gallery's participation in other art-related events. This is not inheritance. Rather this is an art gallery's raison d'être. There are few other reasons that an art gallery could be reported upon in sources. Perhaps a gallery occupies a renovated disused meatpacking plant or power station and sources report on that. But there is little else that sources are likely to report on. Perhaps a reliable source will comment on the spaciousness of an art gallery or the quality of its lighting. But coverage of such factors are not the mainstay of coverage in sources of art galleries. We should want to know whether or not a schedule of art exhibitions are held at an art gallery. That should be our primary metric for determining notability for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And by the way, the artists who show there do not even have to be notable. There is no argument whatsoever that galleries WP:INHERIT notability from artists. You say "As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable." It is not the notability of the artists that matters here—it is support in sources for an exhibition schedule. Reliable sources establish for us the existence of a regular exhibition schedule by publishing criticism and other commentary on art exhibitions held at art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I had a good poke around the Interwebs, Gnews and Gbooks, and could nor find any information in RS about their history. Almost all entries in RS are name checks saying "artist X, of Messen de Clerq".104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The gallery exists and indeed sources do take note of the gallery's existence, but they do so primarily in the form of the art exhibitions that take place there: Leon Vranken: Great plans, random ideas - at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly: the individual artists they exhibit are notable, but the gallery is not.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would not matter whether the individual artists that the gallery shows are notable or not. Some of the artists are not notable. The gallery is notable if sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art. Our question is: do sources cover art exhibitions at the art gallery? An art gallery hosts the artworks of artists. If the gallery is ignored then it is non-notable. But if reliable sources critique the art exhibitions, the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're inventing policy for notability when you say they're notable if "sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art." There's a bus near my house that lots of notable people ride. it has a regular schedule of carrying notable people, in fact.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, here is an interview with the two principals of Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This gallery also participates in other art exhibitions elsewhere: "Gallery Meessen De Clercq explores the relation of a Dutch Golden Era painting and the gallery’s contemporary artists at Brussels Art Fair BRAFA on 23–31 January 2016." Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Meessen De Clercq at Brafa Art Fair Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "By 2018, Meessen De Clercq will be able to look back on seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows and twelve publications (often first monographs on emerging artists). The gallery has participated in forty-seven international art fairs, including Art Basel, Frieze New York and Fiac." Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This last item, for example, is two sentences. There is simply no in-depth coverage of the gallery itself.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows" suggests the existence of an exhibition schedule. In and of itself this does not establish notability for the gallery. But critical notice of those exhibitions in reliable sources establishes notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know what you are getting at, and It is admirable, but the notability fo the artists reviewed in the exhibition reviews does not establish the notability of the gallery. the reviews are, to put it plainly, abotu work that the artist insets into the gallery space, and not about the gallery space. The reviews do not go on at length abotu the history of the gallery, its walls, its operations and the aesthetic quality of its floors. They talk about the artist's intentions, the artist's work and the subjective reaction of viewers to that work. You know that. And again, notability is not inherited.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the notability of the artists in the reviews establishes the notability of the gallery. We are concerned with the notability of the gallery, not the notability of the artists. And we are concerned with the amount of interest reviewers show for art galleries. They take notice of art galleries by writing about art exhibitions. They are not going to write about the floors, the walls, or even the history of the gallery. Why would they? The owners of the gallery choose which artists to show. In so doing they are promoting a type of art. They become known for their particular "taste" in art. Some galleries are more eclectic than others. But art comes in an extraordinarily wide range of forms, and successful galleries inevitably are tastemakers. There is a degree of frisson surrounding the most successful art galleries. The public is not interested in the physical plant of an art gallery. It is silly to expect that reliable sources are going to cover the stability of the staircases or even the lighting, which is an important factor in a good exhibition space. It is inarguably the relevance or the irrelevance of the artists that a gallery chooses to represent that either garners reviews or not. All three parts work together: reviewers, galleries, artists. They either feed into one another or they deaden one another. Contrary to your argument, we are concerned with the reviews of art shows at art galleries. The reviews of shows at art galleries establish the notability of the art gallery provided the reviews are in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just inventing a new policy for notability. However we already have a policy for notability. All we need are ind-depth sources for the gallery, and the AFD will close as keep. Unfortunately these sources only exist for the artists who show there, and not the gallery. AND, before you port another long reply, can we just agree to disagree, and let others contribute? Someone should actually hat all this back and forth as it contributes nothing to the AfD.104.163.157.79 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep on saying that we need sources for the gallery when we already have sources for the gallery. A review of an art show at a gallery is a source for the gallery. The art show is not being held on the street. The art show is not being held in a vacant lot. The art show is not being held in the artist's studio. You refuse to understand that the art show is being held in the art gallery and that the gallerist chose the artist whose work is being shown. The gallery does many other things too but it is the gallerist's taste in art that defines the art gallery. Art is not a commodity. If the gallery were exhibiting sugar there might not be much choice involved—any artist that produces sugar would be as good a choice as any other artist that produces sugar. But art is greatly varied. If 100 artists would like to have an exhibition of their work in a given gallery, the gallery might only choose one of them. But it is that choice that will make the difference between a financially successful gallery and one that loses money. You don't seem to recognize that an exhibition is not just an artist's exhibition but a gallery's exhibition too. There is just as much if not more at stake for the art gallery as there is for the artist. You are not giving credit to the gallery. A substantial review of an exhibition is a credit to the gallery. For our purposes a substantial review or critique of an art exhibition in an art gallery contributes to the notability of the gallery in addition to the notability of the artist. What would you like to hear reviewed—that the gallery has nice restrooms? An art gallery could be held in some cases on derelict property. The taste in art of the gallerist is important. An art gallery could probably be held on a garbage dump. A reviewer of that art show would evaluate the art and such a review would help to establish notability for the "Garbage Dump Art Gallery". Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Messen de Clerq has put on a show of Catalonian conceptual artist Ignasi Aballi, whose works were the subject of Madrid’s Reina Sofía retrospective in 2015-16. On view in the exhibition, titled ‘Translations’, are a number of works on paper, some of which are reminiscent of Josef Albers’s colour studies: grids of different tones marked with phrases such as ‘Peacock Blue’ and ‘Raw Sienna’. Aballi’s ‘Translations of a Japanese dictionary of colour combinations (Part II)’ (2018) is an intriguing series in which colour and language are transposed – and transposed again. One highlight is the 90-minute video Repaint Miró (2016), in which we see a restorer cover a bronze sculpture by Joan Miró in white, then re-paint it in its original colours." This is a review of an art exhibition presented by Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Belgian artist Fabrice Samyn, who is briefly mentioned in our article Ariane de Rothschild Art Prize. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Jonathan Monk. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All this review says about the AFD subject is "Jonathan Monk “Without” at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels". Stop posting garbage sources please, and read WP:N.104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The name of the show is "Without" and it does not contain the work of Jonathan Monk. I stand corrected. It instead shows the work of other artists whose work somehow relates to the work of Jonathan Monk. That is the theme. I am not going to try to defend the concocted themes that art galleries come up with for shows. This is a business and they are promoters and salesmen. But this review is in "Mousse magazine", which may be a reliable source, and such a review would tend to support the notability of the gallery. I am not arguing that the notability of the artists shown in the reviewed exhibition is indicative of notability for the art gallery, but the artists in this exhibition include the following notable names: Robert Barry (artist), Alighiero Boetti, Chris Burden, Dan Graham, Sol LeWitt, Bruce Nauman, and Allen Ruppersberg. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Judging by the number of Wikipedia articles mentioning "Mousse magazine" it is probably a reliable source. We have 66 articles mentioning "Mousse magazine". Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Japanese photographer Rinko Kawauchi. "The exhibition presents a collection of forty photographs portraying everyday life in the vicinity of Kumamoto, a town in southern Japan. The artwork is based on real incidents and experiences of the locals, with each photograph capturing the right moment at the right place to showcase the related stories. Kawauchi's generous work borrows phrases from the local people and embodies the Japanese aesthetic and conceptual notion of ‘the moving intimacy of things.’ In her second solo show at the gallery, the artist pushes the stereotypical boundaries of ‘good photograph’ and attempts to reveal the impermanence of the world and lifecycles along with showcasing natural phenomena as metaphors of human emotions." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, you're bludgeoning the discussion now. everyone knows what you think here. Let some ohters contribute.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Meessen De Clercq is an art gallery in Brussels, one of the most important art capitals of the world. "Brussels Leads The European Contemporary Art Scene In 2017" Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop. The arguments you are giving are very poor. Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria. I tend to agree with you that galleries should be notable by the artists they show, but this is NOT the Wiki policy here. So please just stop. 104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot possibly "agree" with me on a position that I did not take. I did not say that "galleries should be notable by the artists they show". I did not say anything remotely like that. You also say "Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria." Why introduce new terminology? What is a "hot capital"? And I never said that the status of the city in which a gallery was located was a notability criteria for art galleries. I was merely observing the fact that Brussels at this time is a vital center of the worldwide contemporary art market. I found that interesting and I hoped others would as well. Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are just arguing for the sake of argument. Please stop.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to 104.163.157.79—Our WP:GNG policy says the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I would add that reviews of art shows are reviews of galleries provided the art show takes place in the art gallery or is under the auspices of the art gallery but taking place on other premises. This is the work of art galleries being taken note of by reliable sources. Many other factors would apply in ultimately determining notability but they tend to be more minor factors. But your basic argument that commentary in reliable sources of the art shows mounted by art galleries does not confer notability on art galleries is incorrect. How can you possibly argue that the work of an art gallery is INHERITED from artists? Doesn't the gallery play a role in bringing the exhibition into existence? Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to 104.163.157.79—Don't you realize that your argument is wrong? We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken. Yet we are not going to have an article on an active and involved art gallery in one of the most important art cities in the world? The notability is in the reviews of the shows mounted by the art galleries. It is by design that art galleries themselves do not promote their physical plant. A museum would be written about in terms of its physical structure and the infrastructure that supports it or led to its creation. But an art gallery is a much more fly-by-night operation. There are actually "popup" art galleries. They rent a space for three months and hold an exhibition. But even those in long-term operation are not stable entities like museums. It should be noted that our coverage is presently problematic. Art gallery presently redirects to "Art museum". In significant ways these are two different types of institutions. Consequently notability requirements are different. But you seem to want a one-size-fits-all guideline for notability. It does not work. If on the other hand a museum had no sources reporting on the museum itself, you would be correct—it would likely be a candidate for deletion. I think greater sourcing requirements should be expected of museums than of art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your IP friend here again, my IP reset. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Time to put a sock in it and have the good grace to allow others to contribute. 198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP friend. You have the wrong idea about WP:INHERIT concerning this article and unfortunately you aren't willing to discuss that. You seem to think that a review of an art show is solely a review of artwork and of an artist. But an art exhibition is the culmination of many steps that an art gallery is instrumental in bringing about. These steps are too numerous to list but the very existence of an art gallery is a prerequisite to an art show. Reliable sources write reviews of artwork and artists but this should be understood as evidence of a gallery's notability. You do not have to dogmatically stick to a policy that is inapplicable in a given instance. Though a source is addressing an art show at an art gallery, such a source is tending to confer notability on an art gallery. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but you are overtaking the whole AfD process! And using unacceptable arguments to boot, such as WP:OSE ("We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken," etc). The IP contributor makes a valid point: Notability is not inherited. If Edith Piaf stayed in the Grand Hôtel de Clermon, this by itself does not make the hotel notable. Independent notability requires reliable sources testifying to the subject's own, independent notability.
 * You disagree, obviously. It's understood. No need to bludgeon the discussion and fill up space with more and more links about shows, artists, and so on. It's time to allow others to contribute here. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the Notability is not inherited policy—where it is applicable. But it is not applicable here. A source which reviews an art show at an art gallery tends to provide support for the notability of the art gallery hosting that show. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. But this is our point of contention. I would appreciate having a civil discussion in which you address that point instead of dismissing it out of hand. WP:INHERIT is generally applicable. It is not applicable here and we are not required to degrade the encyclopedia in order to hew to the letter of policy. And you should not be telling me not to "fill up space with more and more links about shows" because those links to shows tell us that this is an active art gallery that is involved in the contemporary art world in a city with a very vital art scene. I welcome constructive dialogue, . Bear in mind that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about notability anymore. It's about you intentionally bludgeoning and ruining the Afd process, after multiple requests to step back.198.58.156.206 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point I've given up all hope of you engaging in conversation. All you are doing is complaining. You have one and only one argument. It is simplistic and it is incorrect. That argument is that notability is not inherited, enshrined in our policy of WP:INHERIT. Just because an art gallery is not mentioned (actually it always is mentioned, but only minimally) in a review of an exhibition, that is not an indication that the source is not referencing the gallery. It need not be referenced directly, in order to be referenced. If you want to engage in this deletion discussion you can address that point. We have policies and guidelines for everything. A great one here that you should be citing is WP:SATISFY. Why stop at WP:BLUDGEON? I'm not opposed to our policies and guidelines but they can be misused. Reviews of exhibitions logically reference art galleries even if they don't literally reference art galleries. That is my argument. That is the point that I am making. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think everyone reading this understood your point the first time you replied with the repeating sentences. At this point it would be very CIVIL of you to put a sock in it and let others reply. You have, sadly, bludgeoned your view mercilessly here. Grow up and let others have a say. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understood your main point as soon as you made it, Bus stop. And accepted it as legitimate, though erroneous IMVHO. The avalanche of sources only support the legitimacy of your point, i.e. it exists and it's out there. Nothing is added by piling up more links and text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is "erroneous" then you should be able to articulate why it is erroneous. That is what is conspicuously missing from your input into the above discussion, . Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please make your points citing WP:PAG where possible and move on. This discussion is already deep into WP:TLDR territory. @ Your WP:Bludgeoning in this discussion has been extremely discourteous, bordering on disruptive. Please stop.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —as you probably know there isn't specific language in WP:PAG pertaining to the notability of art galleries (or at least none that I'm aware of) therefore the adaptation of existing PAG may be called for. I think that prompts the unusual amount of discussion seen above and the high volume of input from me. Bus stop (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The nomination (and supporting delete) are flawed because galleries do indeed gain notability from the artists they exhibit - just as football player gain notability from the teams they play on. Galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artworks, but the most important can have a great effect on the local art scene or even the global art world. This one has exhibited enough notable artists to narrowly make the cut imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artwork is like saying Warren Buffett is just a stock-picker. This is especially true of cutting edge, contemporary artwork, which is another point I neglected to mention, applicable to Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that the creator of the article has a username, User:Absens2008 that is taken from the title and year of first exhibition of the gallery. If there is undisclosed paid editing, I'd like to see any conflict of interest resolved before closing this AfD. I have the impression that the gallery was involved in creating an article about itself. The article was previously deleted as unambiguous advertising nominated for G11 again after recreation, but that speedy was declined then declined by blocked sockpuppet. Another contributor who appears to have a CoI is User:Anthropocene2015 See for example Vexations (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The gallery seems notable...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources that would make it possible to write a factual, neutral article are simply not there. The online ones we have are mostly useless:
 * is the gallery itself, and cannot be used to establish notability
 * is an interview with the owners
 * is an interview with the owners
 * is a dead link
 * is a list of participating galleries in the Frieze art fair. It's worth noting that German Wikipedia considers galleries participating in such art fairs for a number of years notable. But other than Meessen De Clercq particpated in The 2012 edition of the Frieze Art Fair, it doesn't tell us anything.
 * is a mention, and again it doesn't really tell us anything other than Ignasi Aballí has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.
 * is a commercial gallery that mentions thtaone of their artists has aso exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. The only statement that we can get from that would be, again, Susan Collins has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.
 * is a listing, not editorial content. This kind of material is submitted by the gallery.
 * is a little better; it has byline, Heini Lehtinen, a contributor. It can't be a review though, since it's dated Jan 20, 2016 and the exhibition it describes took place from 23–31 January 2016. An actual review, albeit very brief is in.
 * "Starting November 8th, the gallery Meessen De Clercq is pleased to present...". That's a press release.


 * Still looking into the other sources that are listed, but not linked that were added by the IP address 91.183.239.198 that only ever contributed to articles about or related to the subject and (surprise?) geolocates to Brussels. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IMVHO, the succinct and trenchant forensics by Vexations above carry the day. Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but WP is not a gallery of indiscriminate exhibits. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At WP:TPYES I find "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I have commenting "Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but..." and "Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but..." In my opinion The Gnome should confine their comments to content and not speculate about the motivations of other editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I will. No need to invoke policy; it's a matter of common courtesy. I apologize. I tried to express sympathy but failed. The rest of my remarks (i.e. comparative assessment of sources) remain as they are. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Bus Stop's information and adequate defense for the notability of this gallery. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. However, it is NOT notable in Wikpedia's very special sense of notable: having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have spent hours trying to fix the sources listed, and have had nothing but difficulties. The list of sources is impossible: The newspapers cited, La Libre Belgique and Le Soir both have extensive archives, and one would expect to find the articles there. Even checking ALL the articles ever published by the authors cited yielded nothing usable. I managed to dig up one source that I can't cite because it uses a blacklisted link, Collect, that quotes the owners on why they participated in the BRAFA art fair. There is a possibility that an article Brusselse topgaleries (deel 5): Galerie Meessen De Clercq by Patrick Auwelaert provides the kind of analysis that would support an article, but I have no access to that source. The article is part of a series that also covers Galerie Jan Mot (part 10), Galerie Rodolphe Janssen (part 9), Galerie Nathalie Obadia (part 8), ( Almine Rech Gallery (part 7), Galerie Greta Meert (part 6),  Galerie Daniel Templon (part 4), Galerie Xavier Hufkens (part 3), Albert Baronian (part 2) and Roberto Polo Gallery (part 1). To see who these galleries represent, take a look at User:Vexations/lists/Galleries, it ought to give some idea about their significance. Personally, I wish it wasn't so difficult to source articles like this. I would like to see articles on art galleries, and I think that linking artists to galleries and vice versa helps to build the web, rather than create walled gardens. But ignoring the dearth of sources is not the solution.
 * Then there is the involvement of the gallery itself in the creation of the article and the creation of the articles on the artists that it represents. The editors Anthropocene2015 and Absens2008 are sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors and their creations might have been eligible for deletion under G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, had they been caught in a timely manner. Both should have been blocked. An AfD is no place to punish a subject for their efforts to promote themselves, but it is appropriate to make one thing very clear: Unless you provide the sources so that the content can be verified and summarize their content from a neutral POV and have the article scrupulously reviewed for verifiability and neutrality (at AfC), there can be no article. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Brava, —spot on and kudos for putting in the labor. Can I try to help with the sources you mentioned? Is this Collect? If you could clarify re: the La Libre Belgique and Le Soir refs, by "nothing usable" did you mean that the content was meager or that you weren't able to find some of the citations? I'll look into getting the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen as it seems  isn't returning with a copy.  czar  23:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Collect referred to here is a Belgian magazine. Their website is http://www.collectaaa.be. The issue is Hiver 2015 Nº 459. I found it through a google cache of the BRAFA website, but couldn't post that here because that google URL is blacklisted. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoh9nr84fcAhVCbKwKHR-cAWsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brafa.art%2Fmedia%2FAntiquesFairBeMedia%2FPressClips%2F2016-2-23-14-24-44_BE%2520-%25202015.12-2016.01%2520-%2520COLLECT%2520AAA%2520(fr).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QBuVvxWXEDHG7iexUDFCF. I'm not sure how to make that URL work. 12:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice—appears to work without the Google cache URL elements (the Google cache isn't a permanent link), but questionable whether BRAFA holds the rights to host this excerpt, no? & could you clarify re: La Libre Belgique and Le Soir? czar  13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For La Libre Belgique for example, the article cites Lorent, Claude (2011-10-06). "Tout, de la cave au grenier". La Libre Belgique. So I looked at all the articles by Claude Lorent that La Libre Belgique has in it's archives http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?artefactFilter=article%2Cfolder%2Cgallery%2Cvideo&section=&subsection=&dateFilter=allDates&to=2018-07-05&from=2001-01-01&sort=&query=Claude+Lorent but nothing resembles the title, "Tout, de la cave au grenier", nor do they have any article published by him for the given date, 2011-10-06. I also queried the archive for the search term "Meessen De Clercq", but that yielded nothing http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?query=%22Meessen+de+Clerq%22. I tried the same type of search for matching either an author/date or article title (Legrand, Dominique. "Galeriste, sans chloroforme".) and simply looking for articles about the subject at Le Soir, which gives http://www.lesoir.be/archives/recherche?word=%22Meessen%20de%20Clercq%22&sort=date%20desc&datefilter=lastyear&form_build_id=form-kLAE3Up-EEgL1FZOQsqAdX67H4jFaU4bfcsIcNUVDoI&form_id=dpidamwidgets_damsimplesearch_content_type_search_form I referred to that as "nothing usable". Vexations (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Yes, that's unfortunate. Sometimes newspapers don't put their full archives online, but without volume/issue metadata, there's no reasonable way to follow up on this... if the listed citations were ever even in print? Ulrich's does not list the two papers as being indexed in online databases, so no help there either: WYSIWYG. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. czar  09:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , Twemoji 1f4e8.svg sent the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen. It looks solid, but I defer to a native speaker. czar  14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am willing to accept the argument that coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer. I would also remind everyone that there are many exceptions to GNG in areas where GNG doesn't work well, such as species of living things, high schools and high-performance athletes. We may need another exception for art dealers analogous to "played at least one game in the major leagues", which means that we will have to define "major league" art dealers in the same way that we have a list of fully professional association football leagues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, ' first sentence summarized my keep argument: The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. In my opinion, and as discussed by above, there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG, and I believe this subject is one. The article needs cleanup and improvement, but is notable enough to remain. --  HunterM267  talk 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat disconcerting that a statement from an anonymous nobody on the internet (me) should be used to decide the notability of a subject. I can't just go and write the article based on my personal knowledge and experience, can I? Follow the sources. If they exist, show us where they are. (Note: Auwelaert 2014 goes a long way towards the kind of coverage that would satisfy the GNG) Vexations (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response - I agree with your comments, and apologize for the lack of depth of my initial statement. Prior to making my comment, I reviewed the references and their links on the article - however, after a more thorough review of the sources listed, I find that the majority of them are primarily trivial mentions of the gallery as a venue for artists (such as here and here). Given this, along with my original statement above, I find that I could largely see the arguments made for both delete and keep. In my review of AfDs, I prefer to prioritize what the WP:RS say, in accordance with our WP:PAG. I cannot deny that this subject, as important to the international art world as it may be, lacks the verifiable references defined in the WP:GNG. For that reason, I cannot, in good conscious, maintain a keep vote, and I have struck my previous statement. However, I also do understand the rationale presented by Eastmain above (re: that the coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer), but lack the knowledge of the details of art galleries to be able to properly formulate an opinion. --  HunterM267  talk 16:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment: I don't believe that there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG is a valid argument in a deletion discussion. The sources either exist or they don't. The entity in question is a private, for-profit company and we need to be mindful of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , what do you think of the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen article? czar  22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it goes some way towards establishing notability. It is one of the few sources that is actually about the gallery. It was written in 2014, six years after the gallery was founded, so it discusses a relatively "young" gallery. It is mostly an interview, and contains no independent analysis by the author. I'm not quite sure what it could be used for. It makes very few factual statements. It cites some very broad remarks by the owners about who they like to work with, like "The personality of the artist is important. It has to click. It has to be someone who believes in his future." I have no idea how you would turn such quotes into something encyclopedic. The problem, I think, is that at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style, tried to function as a platform (publisher, agent) more than a pure sales organization, and didn't really have much of a history. Vexations (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —you say "at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style". I don't know how you know this. What "movement or style" is it linked to now? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I could have phrased hat better. I meant to say that there is nothing in the text of the article by Auwelaert that gives its readers any indication about what kind of work the gallery shows. Their programming is not based on any specific criteria. So you couldn't say, for example, that the gallery specializes in works by artists who have something concrete in common, like Greta Meert, who specializes in minimal and conceptual art, other than "conceptual artists who work with various media". In fact, the only artist from their roster who gets a mention is Fabrice Samyn (Leon Vranken and Ellen Harvey get a photo credit).


 * Comment I think this effort to delete galleries under a literal interpretation of NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion here is a perfect example of this. Hunting for articles or reviews that talk about the gallery, but not any of the artists, so as to argue that there is coverage about the gallery itself exemplifies the failure of NCORP to handle this situation. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had. As Vexations has said, "The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world" and yet by the literalist interpretation of NCORP it seems like it will be deleted. This is a failure of the guidelines. --Theredproject (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ? No one is actually arguing NCORP, nevertheless literally. The agreement is that there aren't enough reliable, secondary source coverage to do justice to the topic. That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines. czar  22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Czar—you say "That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines." WP guidelines do not say that reviews of art exhibitions at art galleries do not lend support to notability of art galleries. Arts journalism does not generally review works of art in for instance artists' studios, or even works displayed on the street. It is the public display of art in the institutions called art galleries that prompts the arts journalism to which you refer. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Publications also write about successful business partnerships and the lives of gallerists, and at the very least they review the gallery's shows. This is the type of content you'd need for a decent, authoritative article about a gallery. It follows that we simply cannot write an article that does justice to the topic if the only sources with editorial distance cover the topic in passing. The idea of exempting art gallery articles from sourcing requirements is off-topic (as Theredproject said above) but to the point that other editors are unhappy with the outcome of this AfD, I suggest resolving the core issue elaborated by Vexations above: insufficient sourcing to write an authoritative encyclopedia article, which is not a fault of the guidelines. czar  13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. A couple of good profiles in respectable publications would solve the notability issue. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" in a unique way is not a valid argument here. If we adopt that as policy then movie theaters who show films by notable directors, bookstores that have author talks, bars and clubs that present notable musicians and perhaps even restaurants who have have hired notable chefs will all be eligible. (router reset, I'm the original delete vote, 104.163.157.79). 96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are failing to address the presence of journalistic reviews of art exhibitions. It is not the presence of notable artists or notable artwork that confers notability on art galleries. It is the presence of journalistic reviews of exhibitions that can confer notability on three entities—artists, artwork, and art galleries. The art exhibition is being held on the premises of the art gallery. The gallery choose both the artist and the art. The gallery scheduled and arranged all aspects of the exhibition. Journalists do not write reviews of artwork in artists' studios. Journalists review exhibitions at art galleries. Some galleries of course have a reputation for stimulating or thought-provoking shows. By the way, don't put within quotation marks that "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" because you are not quoting anyone as no one said that. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm sympathetic to your point that some galleries are notable in the conventional sense, but what would an article look like that was solely based on exhibition reviews? What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review? https://www.flashartonline.com/2012/03/fabrice-samyn-review-6-03-2012/ 11:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —we need not write the article from that review or from any other review but reviews confer notability on art galleries—as well as on artists and artwork. At WP:NNC we find "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." At WP:ARTN we find "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You are conflating two different things when you say "What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review?" That review along with others tends to confer notability on the art gallery, as well as on the artist and the artworks under review in that journalistic piece. We already have an article. The material may or may not derive from reviews of art exhibitions held at the gallery. It is my hope that the material already in the article—whether it comes from reviews of exhibitions or other sources—is based on acceptable-quality sources. But I would argue that a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery. In practice what this can mean for articles on art galleries is a selective list of artist's names and the titles of artworks, with an aim towards providing some commentary, if available. A plus would be the inclusion of images of artworks reliably-sourced to have been exhibited at that gallery. Images convey to the reader a general idea of the kind of art the gallery specializes in. In summation, there are two separate questions: what should the content be? and is the gallery notable? We can "Keep" this article because it already has some content, and notability is established by the many reviews of art exhibitions held there. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm trying my best to see things from your POV, but if, as you say a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery, then how are you going to write an acceptable article? Are you proposing that we can have articles about subjects whose notability is derived separately, from sources like the review in flash art, and then get the content of the article from other sources that are not themselves independent, reliable, secondary sources? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —don't we have an article already and aren't we considering deleting it? I don't know what you mean by "how are you going to write an acceptable article?" Is the article unacceptable now? "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." In your previous post you mentioned this review. That review tends to confer notability on three entities—the artist, the artworks mentioned, and the gallery. I'm really not sure what problem you are perceiving. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have no decent sources for this article at all, as I pointed out above. Vexations (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem here is how is bludgeoning the discussion and thereby preventing other voices.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. the r references are essentially mere listing s and indiental mentions and self-published sources. They've been analyzed adequately above.  It's true that it is quite difficult to show a gallery notable -- what people write about is the artists.  I think it would take spedcific truly 3rdparty sources writing about the school of art or the art scene in the city and devoting considerable discussion to the gallery itself.  DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 17 July 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.