Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Taylor 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Taylor Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company operated by a non-notable art dealer. While it is referenced it is not a topic of an cyclopaedic nature. It is essentially spam masquerading as a genuine article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This gallery has clearly mounted exhibitions by a wide range of well-known artists (see for example ). That begs the question of whether WP:NOTINHERITED applies, which in the case of a gallery maybe amounts to whether it is a passive space where things happen or an active place which makes things happen? In this case, I think the Laura Cumming piece (referenced) in The Observer tips the balance towards notability. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But is that enough? There are 73,000 ghits. Is that low for a company? I would say yes. And I also say that the bar is set far too low for notability of companies. Need to try and stem the flow of spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak keep - I just don't think there is enough there to justify a "pass" against WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage for which there are links are for articles that mention the gallery in passing. One lists the gallery as the place of employment for a particular manager who herself isn't the focus of the article. Another mentions the gallery building in an article about the architects. Neither is really enough to be considered "significant coverage" of the company itself. Would be happy to consider anything anyone considers would allow the subject to meet the criteria but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable gallery, their exhibitions are frequently reviewed by important British newspapers, such as The Independent, Evening Standard, Telegraph etc. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but the problem with most of those "sources" is that they aren't about the subject - they are about exhibitions on display at the subject gallery. The "reviews" (for the most part) say nothing about the gallery other than a passing mention (in some cases, just an address and phone number) about the exhibition being there. A small independent supermarket doesn't inherit notability from the Coca Cola stocks on its shelves and a farmer isn't notable because he has chosen to buy his tractors from John Deer. In the same way, a gallery wouldn't (in my opinion) inherit notability from the artists whose art they exhibit. An article about an artist talking about the gallery would be a different story - "I chose the [subject] Gallery because...". Take street art for example - having a Banksy print on a particular wall does not make that wall or that street notable. Coverage of the artwork does not make the street notable, unless it is (for example) focussed on how that particular street has become a "magnet" for street art and the coverage is also about the street itself. Otherwise, the coverage just serves to makes the artist and the artwork notable. We need to find sources that give coverage of the gallery itself. Am happy to accept that such sources might exist but I haven't been able to find any and no-one else has provided anything that would seem to fit the bill. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison with Coca Cola and John Deer tractors is a bit exaggerated. We are talking about a gallery representing artists such as Julian Schnabel and exhibiting big names such as Diane Arbus. The exhibitions of this gallery are regularly reviewed by important newspapers, it is mentioned in thousands of books . An article (The Independent, 2003) about the gallery and its owner calls it ... one of the biggest commercial art galleries in London .. (HighBeam subscription required), another substantial article by Women's Wear Daily is exclusively about the gallery (HighBeam subscription required). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't trying to mount a straw man argument - was just trying to better explain my application of WP:INHERIT in this particular context. As I said above - I'd be keen to consider anything anyone suggests might allow the subject to meet notability criteria. While I don't have a highbeam account, on the surface the references you've given above would seem (based on your analysis) to better fit the bill and would be more like what we're looking for - substantive stuff rather than passing mentions. Because even "thousands" of passing mentions aren't as valuable as a few great sources. We need for the gallery to have received the coverage, not the artists. Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, both the sources discuss the gallery and its owner, or more precisely, moving the gallery to 24 Dering Street in 2003. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, yeah, they would be getting closer to what we need. I'm still not necessarily convinced that two articles that discuss a relocation would be substantive enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (that would seem more "WP:ROUTINE" to me, though that guideline is for events). But the combination of those (having assumed in good faith that they say what you say they say) and passing mentions in coverage of related exhibitions (despite my contentions about WP:INHERIT) and some of the general claims of notability which seemed to be backed by the available sources (like the suggestion it is "one of the biggest commercial art galleries in London") is enough to convince me it probably passes. I have changed my "vote" above on that basis. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2012 (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.