Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lee 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.  Sandstein  09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Simon Lee Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently not notable by our new and more stringent standards for businesses (and probably not by the old ones either). It carries on the routine business of a gallery, buying and selling works of art, and receives some routine coverage as a result. Some of those works are by famous artists, and thus attract media attention; but the purveyor does not inherit notability from the notability of the products purveyed – a car dealer is not notable because he sells cars of notable makes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Because I think there is enough coverage about the gallery to establish notability. Take for example this article in artnews the profiles the gallery upon its opening of a New York location. . This is not routine coverage. Additionally there are many reviews of exhibitions at the galleries. I think it’s an interesting question as to whether the notability of the artists represented by the gallery should or should not have any impact on our assessment of the notability of the gallery. Or to put it a different way: should a review of an artist’s Show at a gallery contribute to establishing the notability of the gallery? The review is about the artist, but it’s a show that is taking place at the gallery.  In that regard, it’s not about inheriting notability (as if a gallery could gain notability from an exhibition They had shown at a different gallery)  but rather about the notability of the exhibition that also notable artist has produced at this gallery.  The meaningfulness of such reviews is especially clear in contrast to DTR Modern Galleries the other gallery currently here at AfD. Theredproject (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly an ongoing art business concern. Numerous exhibitions of contemporary art at the gallery attest to its notability. Sources are numerous relating to the gallery as an ongoing business concern. Bus stop (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, there is an "ongoing art business concern" not far from my house where you can get framed pictures of elephants and tigers at reasonable prices. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Clearly none of the Keep !voters above have read the guidelines. This is a run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability. Most of the coverage is based on announcements and/or interviews, none are intellectually independent and all fail WP:ORGIND. Other coverage provides information on exhibits but noting about the business of the gallery and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: just a directory listing for an unremarkable private gallery. Does not meet WP:NCORP and GNG; significant RS coverage not found. The fact that it's an on-going business concerns is immaterial in notability discussions, since Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of all businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this is basically an advertisement for the gallery, which on its own has done little that merits notability. The fact that it shows notable artists is does not make the gallery notable, just as the fact that notable artists but X brand of paint paint does not make the paint notable. The sources are of the business promotion type, meaning all in all this fails GNG.104.163.159.237 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The gallery is obviously notable. It is pointless to argue that an ongoing exhibition schedule of artwork does not contribute to the notability of the institution, and sources are available providing a small amount of commentary on the gallery itself. Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Question and Comment: I am trying to understand how, , and 104.163.159.237 are interpreting NCORP, and I am concerned that NCORP is not particularly suited to evaluating art galleries. What I believe I am understanding, is that your interpretations of NCORP argues that a review of an exhibition cannot establish notability because it is not independent. Is this a correct understanding? Furthermore, it is considered inherited, because the review is of the art not the gallery -- is this correct? --Theredproject (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment., I also look forward to reading what those three editors have to say; meanwhile, here's my take: the crucial bit of WP:NCORP is WP:CORPDEPTH: "". With the exception of the one artnews source that you have mentioned above – which is mostly about Lee, but does have some coverage of his gallery business – I don't see where we can find such "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of this particular business. This gallery carries on the same routine activities as any other – it promotes artists and tries to sell (or sometimes buy) their works, often by holding exhibitions. Those artists may at times be sufficiently notable that a show attracts the attention of the press (and of course the gallery does its best to make sure that it does). In general, a review of such a show discusses the artist and the artist's work, but often does not contain any coverage of the gallery itself beyond a mention of the place and dates of the exhibition (e.g., “Valerie Snobeck: Reservoirs” runs January 13 through February 11, 2016 at Simon Lee Gallery, Hong Kong); in my view, that falls precisely under "brief mentions and routine announcements".
 * This question has come up before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galleria d'Arte Maggiore. There I wrote "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. How is this different?". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this different? While art may be cars, meat or clothing, it is not necessarily any of these things. We are talking about an art gallery. Art is very loosely defined. It is not necessarily oil paint on canvas. In order to provide coverage of art it is helpful to include coverage of art galleries because that is where much art receives exposure to the public. We need not deprive the reader of access to information about the fundamental means by which art reaches wider audiences than an artist's small circle of acquaintances. Art galleries play a crucial role in ferrying artworks from the artist's studio to the more or less permanent collections of the more august art museums. The art galleries themselves maintain a minimal presence because they do not wish to overshadow the work contained therein. They are not only physically empty spaces but they allow the sort of art commonly shown to define the gallery itself. An owner or operator of an art gallery is transmitting his or her taste in art to the public by the sort of art chosen for exhibition within its space. The true gauge of notability for an art gallery should be the notability of the artwork shown and consistent long-term schedules of exhibitions whether that artwork is notable or not. Reviews of shows therefore are not to be overlooked and in fact should be looked to for an accurate indication of the notability of art galleries. Unfortunately our notability guidelines overlook the factors that are specifically pertinent to art galleries, resulting in the needless deletion of relatively important articles. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 12 May 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.