Albemarle Gallery

Albemarle Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see any reason why this recently established gallery is in any way notable, a feeling that is reinforced by the fact that the article relies upon the gallery's own website. Kasmins or White Cube it aint. TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Operating since 1986" is not "recently established"! It's older than White Cube, if not quite as starry. Wider refs would be good. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problem is not when it was established, but the fact it does not have any reviews or information about it activity. Article is overlinked, but most of them lead to the gallery website itself. Almost all the information I've found about it is related to the artists, exhibited in it and while many of them are notable, the notability is not inherited. For art gallery I expect to see some in-depth independent reviews or/and articles and not dozens of passing mentions, like "this artist also exhibited in Albemarle Gallery". Unfortunately I didn't find it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977—you say "For art gallery I expect to see some in-depth independent reviews or/and articles and not dozens of passing mentions, like 'this artist also exhibited in Albemarle Gallery'." It is unlikely that art galleries will be subject to "in-depth independent reviews or/and articles" separate from the exhibitions they hold and the artists in those exhibitions. This is not a reason for us to not have articles on art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. It's true that gallery by itself is just a walls and roof, but as an institution, every gallery is notable as an institution and not a premise, where works of art are shown. For example, if I take a hall and exhibit works of Damien Hirst there, it does not make the hall a notable place. But if I take a hall, add a curator, who will generate a buzz, leading to articles, explaining in-depth why this specific exhibition is notable in conjunction with works of Hirst, this adds to the claim of notability. Take for example, every gallery from this list . Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are shitty galleries—no doubt. This is not such a shitty gallery. They have mounted a considerable number of shows of what appear to be original work by what appear to be relatively unknown artists. I think the number of unknown artists whose work is shown is more indicative of the quality of the gallery and therefore the rationale for our hosting an article than the number of highly-known artists. A not unimportant function of some galleries is finding talent, not providing a roof and walls for already established artists. Furthermore notable art critics give talks at this gallery. That serves an educational purpose not unlike that of museums. Here we have Brian Sewell talking at Albemarle Gallery and here we have Edward Lucie-Smith talking at Albemarle Gallery. The stature of such critics leads me to understand that the gallery is of some substance. Consequently we should want to have an article on such an art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could be notable but its reliance on primary sources and its promotional tone make it wholly unencyclopedic. DrStrauss talk 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nine/24 non-primary sources Nine (quite a number) out of 24 citations are not self-sourcesNeuralia (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after removing Weebly, Saatchi Art and Other non- WP:RS sources, I see zero good sources. It's all fluffy promotion. Nothing of note in Google books/Google news. To be fair, this is to be expected. There are very few notable small galleries in the world. Under 50? The gallery itself is not what usually creates notability: it's the artists inside that are notable. As I say below, that notability is not inherited by the gallery, at least in WP world. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eleven notable artists exhibited in the gallery Wikipedia biographies of eleven notable artists acknowledge exhibitions at this gallery Neuralia (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited.104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED. Galleries host shows of the works of artists. These components are barely extricable from one another under commonplace circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An art gallery is an institution. This is not a "recently established gallery". That is a lengthy time ("operating since 1986") for a gallery to continuously be showing works of contemporary art. Absence of critical recognition for the gallery itself is not necessarily a negative mark against the institution. Yes, we have a policy of WP:NOTINHERITED and it doesn't strongly apply here due to the almost inextricable relationship between artists and the art galleries in which their work is most commonly encountered by the public. I count at least 9 artists with articles on Wikipedia that have shown their artwork at this gallery. I think even the long list of artists that have shown at this gallery that do not have articles on Wikipedia constitute an argument for Keeping this article. I think institutions with as deep a root system as this warrant an article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the same nine artists buy their canvas from Acme Canvas company, is it notable too? Per Policy the only way to establish notability is through published sources. The root system might be miles deep, but if nobody has written about it, then it does not get an article.104.163.152.90 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comparison is of "Acme Canvas company" to Albemarle Gallery. Why is that comparison apt? Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

canvas companies and galleires are both used by notable artists, but are both usually non-notable.104.163.152.90 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here we have Brian Sewell talking at Albemarle Gallery and here we have Edward Lucie-Smith talking at Albemarle Gallery—and we are considering deleting Albemarle Gallery? In explanation for the reason this is nominated for deletion I read "Kasmins or White Cube it aint". So what? You don't nominate a gallery for deletion because it is not another gallery. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The two links you provide above unfortunately are of no value in this discussion as they are a)both talks at Abermarle Gallery, and b) published on Youtube. What is needed are sources in news and publishing that confirm its notability through in-depth discussion of the gallery. Those do not appear to exist. (Also, my router seems to have reset. I was 104.163.140.193 before reset) 104.163.152.90 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability for art galleries should be considered the same as the notability requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Bus stop (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability for high schools is 100% unrelated to this discussion. I'm done arguing with you here, have a nice evening. 104.163.152.90 (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please point me to the notability requirements for art galleries? Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no independant guidelines. They fall under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. This one is a goof explanatory article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This has come up before. Art galleries are being subjected to unrealistic notability requirements and consequently being deleted. There is an almost symbiotic relationship between art galleries and works of art. Art has to be shown somewhere. Only so much art is public art, and artist's studios are not that often used as exhibition spaces. A large proportion of art is displayed in galleries. The gallery is serving its role if it is used by artists and the gallery-going public. Sources in support of articles on art galleries should be understood to be sources on the other components that use art galleries—the gallery-going public, the artworks themselves, and the artists. Sources are unlikely to focus on the galleries alone. Nevertheless the galleries are notable if utilized by the other components. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If you want to create notability criteria for art galleries, sure, go for it, and then gain a consensus that they're valid. But a symbiotic argument cuts no ice: notability still isn't inherited. Me, I think such an argument is like "Boohoo, there aren't any notability criteria for ice cream stands, so I can't write an article on my favorite corner malt shop" but that's just me. As far as the notability criteria already in place, the subject fails, however much of an "institution" it allegedly is. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NukeThePukes—the gallery system includes artists, artworks, and perhaps other components, such as art critics and art curators. An art gallery does not inherit notability from the artists in its shows because the notability of one is part and parcel of the other—as long as they are closely associated. Ditto for works of art closely associated with certain galleries. Please see our Campbell's Soup Cans article: "Irving Blum was the first dealer to show Warhol's soup can paintings ... Blum was shocked that Warhol had no gallery arrangement and offered him a July show at the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles." These components are inseparable. There is no inheritance. The most common arrangement by which the public comes to know about new developments in the art world is by the system that brings together artworks, art galleries, and artists. It is misguided to argue that our policy of WP:NOTINHERITED prevents us from establishing notability for art galleries from closely associated artists, artworks, etc. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stand up, I'm afraid. Some galleries are important because they are instrumental in advancing the careers of important artists. Others are just shops.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Shops" selling what? Stockings? Socks? Rocks? Even the most unremarkable art is subject to the absence of a definition of what art is. Since 1986 this art gallery has been purveying artworks fresh out of living artists' studios. All art galleries are merely "shops". But they exercise the discernment particular to the weird world of art. You are making an artificial distinction between those galleries that are "instrumental in advancing the careers of important artists" and those that are merely shops selling the usual fare of stockings, socks, and rocks. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs work, but the abundance on non-self-reported refs found in Google News prove notability. Deletion is a disservice to readers who want to learn about this gallery. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that all of the Google News refs mentioned above are WP:ROUTINE mentions where the Abermarle is mentioned as the physical location of the show, and nothing more. Contrary to the assertion, the Google news mentions tell you absolutely nothing about the gallery on its own-- they just tell you what is showing there. (I'm fomerly 104.163.152.90).96.127.243.41 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is correct—the Google News mentions tell you nothing about the ventilation systems in the gallery, nothing about the gallery's lavatories, nothing about how frequently the gallery repaints the walls in its exhibition spaces. You say that the Google News hits only "tell you what is showing there." That is normal and expected under the circumstance. Galleries choose art and associated artists. The art that is chosen by a gallery tells you all that you need to know about that gallery. The artwork reflects upon the gallery. The gallery becomes known by the sorts of artwork it generally displays. The physical plant is unlikely to be of much interest to most readers. Sure, exceptions can be found. But we should not delete articles because of an absence of sources commenting on the gallery in isolation from artworks and artists closely associated with that gallery. The gallery becomes known for its discernment, its taste. Types of art are almost limitless. It goes without saying that galleries meet the requirements of spaces in which to display art. Journalists and critics write not about the gallery but rather about the artists and artworks associated with that gallery. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "we should not delete articles because of an absence of sources commenting on the gallery"... actually this is exactly why we should delete articles. Your badgering of every commenter is not helping your case. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This gallery appears to have an absence of sources commenting on the gallery. Do you think this article should be deleted? Despite the fact that it has been in operation since 1986? Despite the fact that artists with articles on Wikipedia have shown there? Despite the fact that art critics who have articles on Wikipedia have spoken there? What would you like to see in the way of a source about the gallery? What would the source talk about? My, what lovely lavatories the Albemarle Gallery has? Be realistic. A gallery is its artists. That is the way the "gallery system" works. It is the predominant system. There have been efforts to circumvent the system. There are artist-run galleries. And there are artists who attempt to sell from their studios. There is art in public spaces. One can also try to hawk art on the street. By the way, if you look at articles on art galleries you will see a dearth of sources on the gallery itself. Look at OK Harris Gallery. It was virtually an institution. Our article exists without a vast quantity of sources commenting on the gallery itself. Art galleries occupy a murky world between groundbreaking aesthetic advancement and hucksterism and it is hard to tell the dividing line. The same is true for artists. To me it is blazingly obvious that Wikipedia should take note of an institution that has played in that arena since 1986 with some indications of success. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, if you are having trouble with your IP Address, why don't you just get a Username? My only regret is not choosing a dumber-sounding Username. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. If there were an entry dedicated to one exhibition in the gallery, you could claim WP:ROUTINE. WP:ROUTINE is used to exclude regular, non-noteworthy events from entry into Wikipedia. That's not the case here. This gallery is well-cited and well recognized. A full fledged feature article is not a requirement for entry into wikipedia an abundence of citations and notability is. Would you consider nominating the Treaty Room of the White House for deletion? Most of the coverage of the Treaty Room is about things that happened there, not the room itself, and judging from current citations there really isn't much about the room itself. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery is not well-sited, and that is the problem. virtually all mentions are WP:ROUTINE, or in other words, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The Treaty room mention is bogus. I am sure I could find a thousand good references for the Treaty room that speak specifically about its history and what has happened there. You are also conflating the exhibitions at the Abermarle (which may have been notable and written about) and the gallery itself. Nothing significant has been published about the Abermarle gallery itself. Despite numerous protests that is should be notable because X, Y and Z, we cannot find decent references (the only actualy criteria for notability-- sources) to support the notability of the Abermarle Gallery. This has become a silly discussion. The references simply do not exist to support notability no matter how much the keep votes protest. You cannot argue this place into notability-- you simply need to provide references. Good night. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had no trouble at all finding significant mentions of the history of OK Harris Gallery, and was able to add six Google Books references in fifteen minutes. Because, simply, it is notable. Search for similar WP:RS for the Albermarle, on its history, who ran it etc, and there is nothing.96.127.243.41 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.243.41—do you feel that this article should be deleted? Or, are you just playing devil's advocate? Have you done a YouTube search for "Albemarle Gallery"? Please try doing that. Video after video confirms the notability of the gallery. Seriousness of purpose matters. There is no reason to compare this article to the article on Treaty Room. The comparison serves to support the argument that it is not the physical plant that matters. But other than that, the argument falls flat. Instead we should be looking at what we know about the subject of this article. The YouTube videos show at least 2 prominent art critics on 2 occasions giving talks at the gallery. Why does this matter? Connoisseurship is the intellectual underpinning of art. This is important to contemporary art, as well as to art in general. The gallery is being taken notice of, by prominent critics, because the activities that occur there are serious. Aside from the critics, the setting is deadly serious. "Serious" doesn't mean somber. This is a "real" contemporary art gallery. One of the reasons given for deletion is that this gallery is no White Cube. This only shows that someone drank the Kool-Aid. In presenting contemporary art one is always confronted with the question What is art? This is as true of "Albemarle Gallery" as it is of "White Cube". A glance at the YouTube videos shows you right away that this is a fully functioning contemporary art gallery. I never heard of this gallery until a few days ago when I saw this article up for deletion. I'm actually just trying to help you to see what you are doing. You are single-mindedly and wrongheadedly focussed on WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED. There are numerous factors that should guide us on whether or not to host an article on an art gallery. Please see this and this and their associated Wikipedia articles here and here. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.243.41—you say above "You are also conflating the exhibitions at the Abermarle (which may have been notable and written about) and the gallery itself." The gallery is the exhibitions. The gallery hardly exists separately from the exhibitions and the artworks and the artists. The three factors come together to create a contemporary art gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. As I said above, the Albermarle is simply a shop. That its products may be notable does not confer notabity. By way of analogy Super Mashriq, my local corner shop, sells Worcester Sauce. And I don't really think that the exhibitions are truly notable in the way that, for instance, the Armory Show was a notable exhibition. They are simply part of the careers of notable artists.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is imperfect because unlike in the instance of art, we know what good Worcester sauce is, what mediocre Worcester sauce is, and what bad Worcester sauce is. The Armory Show was not an art gallery and the Armory Show took place 100 years ago. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. We are talking about notabity rather than merit. And I don't think you are familiar with Worcester Sauce; there is no such thing as bad Worcester sauce, although there may be inferior imitators, which are not Worcester sauce. As for knowing what is good, I believe that there are people who prefer Branstons baked beans to Heinz's, just as there are people who think Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst can be considered seriously as artists. When the Armory show took place is irrelevant. It's simplay an example of notable show.TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the Armory Show took place may be irrelevant but contemporary examples might be more comparable, and the Armory Show was not an art gallery. ("The Armory Show typically refers to the International Exhibition of Modern Art that was organized by the Association of American Painters and Sculptors in 1913, the first large exhibition of modern art in America.") Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you add tincture of formaldehyde to Worcester sauce wouldn't it be bad or at least mediocre? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point but irrelevant. I'd argue that it would no longer be strictly Worcester sauce- incidentally it would be toxic rather than mediocre. TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are ludicrously focussed on "Worcester sauce". Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bus stop, badgering everyone who comes to this AfD with an opinion isn't helpful. Do you think you could just chill out and let this proceed? It's not meant to be a battleground.96.127.243.41 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.243.41—could you stop complaining? I have asked you questions. I asked you what part the presence of 2 prominent art critics speaking at the gallery plays in your thinking. But you have not responded. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the replies, you will see that Youtube source are not reliable refs. That's basic. I also note that you have been blocked for edit warring and other conduct issues at least a half a dozen times.96.127.243.41 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]