The discussion was long and messy. I was able to identify and evaluate the following significant points of concern:
My comments below are not an assessment of consensus, they have have no effect on anything, and they are merely an attempt to aid others in understanding this rather long debate:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have watched over the last year as numerous contemporary art galleries have been deleted at AFD under the new WP:NCORP guidelines. I agree with many of these decisions, but some I disagree with. As someone who !votes with consensus over 90% of the time, I particularly disagree with the logic behind these decisions, which amounts to something like this:
Here are some prime examples of this argument in action, across a range of articles:
Here is my problem with this argument:
At present we have a gallery called Foxy Production that is up at AFD, which I think is a prime example of the way that these interpretations of these rules are failing. (Full COI disclosure, as an active artist I am an acquaintance of one of their artists, and have met one of the two gallery owners on a couple of occasions, though I doubt he would remember me.) I strongly differentiate this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition Gallery (2nd nomination) which is also up at AFD right now, and should be deleted. By some estimates there are 1500 art galleries in NYC, the center of the artworld, and of course they are not all considered significant; at present we only have 109 Category:Art galleries in Manhattan, and if we apply these rules, we will probably only have 30 or 40. And yet we have thousands of NYC Artists. In the NYC artworld, Foxy Production is considered a significant gallery:
After voting to !keep, and in response to the WP:NCORP/WP:NOTINHERITED argument, Userqio struck their vote, and wrote "I'm not sure how a contemporary art gallery could even establish notability since they're not likely to be the subject of a conventional article, since the only "product" they produce is other people's work and they are not old enough to appear in most history books." This pretty much sums it up.
The real question here, is whether Wikipedia seeks to exclude nearly all contemporary art galleries, as these interpretations essentially exclude nearly all galleries. I don't see those rules being deployed to produce the same double bind for
Do we need to establish a clear guidance re the interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED for galleries, or do we need a separate set of rules for Galleries? If we do neither, the vast majority of the existing articles will be deleted.
Pinging the active editors at AFD for Artists and Visual Art: @ThatMontrealIP, Vexations, RebeccaGreen, PamD, Coolabahapple, Heathart, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, Montanabw, E.M.Gregory, Bus stop, Justlettersandnumbers, and Arthistorian1977: --Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"or do we need a separate set of rules for Galleries?"
"these galleries produce the context that makes an object into a work of art."
Some possible criteria for us to include in WP:NCORP:
Even with this, we will end up with pages that read "X gallery is a gallery in Y, and has shown A,B and C". So it ends up being a Yellow Pages ad (remember those?). So we need something to ensure that it will enable articles beyond just listings.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"Building on the existing research into who is notable (i.e. the artists) makes a lot of sense."
"serious"
"vital purpose".
"What matters is that there is significant coverage about it"
"every art gallery consistently mounts art exhibits"
"reviews confirm the existence of the art gallery and that it consistently mounts art exhibitions"
"how can we write articles about galleries where there is no in-depth coverage about the gallery itself?"
"coverage about the gallery itself"
TLDR: let's not argue, but rather hear your proposal for the criteria wording.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I initially wrote a lot, but I'll condense: Not all subjects are equal in notability, because our priority isn't what's important in a given domain but what subjects receive coverage in reliable sources that let us write a solid, neutral encyclopedia article rather than a directory listing permastub or promotional pieces. It's a necessary evil that's absolutely unfair to people, places, and things in many fields. It means that a video game is far more likely to have an article than an economist, and a gossip website more likely than a literary journal. The answer, which I think the semi-recent overhaul of WP:ORG was a step towards, is raising the standards for the former in each case rather than pushing up against WP:NOT and WP:NPOV in order to carve out a place for the latter. This is just to say that I would generally oppose subject-specific notability criteria that aren't directly tied to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.
Now then, that's not the only thing being proposed here. The other question is what counts as significant coverage, and to that end I think it's a valid point that we too often discredit certain types of coverage with e.g. NOTINHERITED. I think NOTINHERITED makes sense with a gallery, if the only mention of a gallery is in the details below a review, or otherwise a very brief mention, but I've seen NOTINHERITED applied as though no coverage of an exhibit should count for the gallery, and that's not necessarily the case at all. A review that puts a show in the context of the gallery, or which makes use of the gallery's contextualization, or, compares it with other shows at the gallery, etc. -- or which, obviously, talks about the gallery/gallerist in a nontrivial way -- is of course coverage of the gallery, and not just the artist. And I wouldn't be opposed to clarifying that somewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"permastub"
are artificial and preposterous distinctions
"A review that puts a show in the context of the gallery, or which makes use of the gallery's contextualization, or, compares it with other shows at the gallery, etc. -- or which, obviously, talks about the gallery/gallerists in a nontrivial way -- is of course coverage of the gallery, and not just the artist."
Some of this discussion makes a clear point of the significant difference between a gallery and a museum. A gallery is in the business of selling art - they are basically a storefront. A gallery is in the business of collecting and displaying art for historical preservation. The latter is much more significant in the long term, while galleries, like stores, come and go. Certainly some "galleries" are important, one could argue Barclay's is such a beast. But most other galleries are simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought. That's why NCORP fully applies, and why we should not make special exemptions to galleries. --Masem (t) 03:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
"Absolutely not, on the assumption that the gallery is just named."
"but not without sources to back it"
"Whole Foods being known to feature more organic foods"
"We need something more in a gallery notability criteria."
"the real answer to that "too few" (says who?) art galleries can meet the GNG is that there just aren't that many notable art galleries"
"the GNG"
"If you're advocating the latter, you're stipulating that art galleries are uniquely important to the point that they must be exempt from the notability standard just about every other article on Wikipedia must meet."
"art galleries are uniquely important"
Their uniqueness is that reliable sources typically do not write about art galleries.
"How are we supposed to write an encyclopedic article about a topic that has no reliable sources?"
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
simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought
Let’s take a moment to explore the concept of galleries as exhibition spaces (ignoring, for the moment, their commercial side). In this, the closest equivalent to an art gallery is an art museum. So... what criteria do we use to determine whether a museum is notable? What sources do we use, and what type of coverage within those sources indicate notability? Surely we can apply the same criteria to galleries. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
"Surely we can apply the same criteria to galleries."
"[S]ignificance"
"[L]ong-term"
"long-term significance"
"We're not talking about the use of those products."
"Kiwi (shoe polish) or Gilette"
We have strayed from the focus of this thread, which is to explore art galleries as exhibition spaces, comparable to museums... and explore whether the criteria we use to determine whether a museum is notable (or not) would work for art galleries. Could we get back to that? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"there are many museums that exhibit experimental art"
As I noted in my opening text, the discussion on Wikipedia about galleries misunderstands the nature, purpose and motivation of art galleries. @Masem: wrote that "A gallery is in the business of selling art - they are basically a storefront. [...] most other galleries are simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought"
"A gallery is in the business of selling art - they are basically a storefront. [...] most other galleries are simply places with empty space on the walls to be filled with paintings to be bought"
As I noted in my opening text, there is a lot of scholarship on the complex relationship between art and commerce. Dave Beach has surveyed the 400 year history of art's economic exceptionalism: which is to say, people don't make art, sell art, or buy art for the same reasons they make, buy, or sell other things.[1] In her distinction between labor and work, Hannah Arendt disentangled artmaking from other forms of labor.[2] And as I noted above, Arthur Danto has discussed the role of art galleries in creating culture.
These three references just scratch the surface. While there are undoubtedly some art galleries who are in business solely to make a profit, the reality is that the vast majority have much more complicated motivations. They seek to make culture, and accrue cultural prestige.
There are other exceptional categories: religions, for example. Some might argue that religions are primarily business concerns,[3][4] and yet we have articles for over 9000 churches in the US alone, many of which can and will only ever be permastubs. --Theredproject (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{cite book}}
|date=
Art is not fungible. It is not like lettuce, shoe-shine polish or razor blades. Each work of art by any artist is different from the next. And each artist is different from the next. Sherrie Levine can make a perfect copy of another artist's work, and that second work can have an entirely different meaning from the first.
So making an argument by comparing an art gallery to a grocery store simply doesn't work. The commodities being sold have fundamentally different metaphysical and economic properties. --Theredproject (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Even if this were Special Pleading (which I don't think it is), as @ThatMontrealIP: said, we're not so hard and fast all the time. We have enshrined this in special rules for many things, for example:
we're not so hard and fast all the time
Permastubs exist across the encyclopedia, with far poorer sourcing than these articles. Take for example Category:Baseball biography stubs. Here are three randomly selected articles for your consideration:
In comparison, it becomes clear to me that these Gallery articles that you are worried are going to become stubs, are in fact already Start class articles. --Theredproject (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: mentioned curators, and I think that including that consideration here helps articulate the problem I am trying to describe. IRL the significance of curators and galleries are judged based on:
The problem here is that the interpretation of NCORP and NOTINHEIRITED excludes these very measures of significance: the notability of the artists they have worked with, and the reviews of the exhibitions they have made.
It may be helpful to look at this from another angle: in the tenure and promotion process at a university, a candidate is judged by the quality of their research. For a scholar this is some measure of their impact (via the quality of the journals they publish in, the reviews their books have received, how often they are cited, etc). For an artist this is a combination of the venues they have exhibited in, and the reviews their work has received. For a curator, it is a hybrid: a combination of their scholarship (as many/most curators write essays, which often live in catalogs for their shows), the quality of artists they are working with, and the reviews their exhibitions have received. Wikipedia’s guidelines for scholars, and artists are more or less in line with IRL standards, but contradict the standards for curators / gallerists. --Theredproject (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"The problem here is that the interpretation of NCORP and NOTINHEIRITED excludes these very measures of significance: the notability of the artists they have worked with, and the reviews of the exhibitions they have made."
"reviews of the exhibitions they have made"
"A piece of art only temporarily resides in an art gallery, so its not even going to have some long-term connection to it."
"elements of the gallery"
"the means the exhibits are presented"
"Notability requires, at the end of the day, sources that talk directly about the gallery - not the art it promoted"
"As to unknown artists, we are not here to promote the work of the unknown"
I think there may a problem with the use of WP:NOTINHERITED in AfDs. First off al, NOTINHERITED is not a guideline or policy, but an essay that aims to clarify which arguments to avoid in AfDs.
When applied to art galleries, NOTINHERITED means that one should not use the argument that the subject (gallery) is notable because: (roughly following the examples given in the essay)
In a way, these all say the same thing; a subject is not notable because is it a member of a class that has notable members, and nothing is inherently notable.
The way this is applied to AfDs on art galleries is usually something along the lines of: the artists are notable but that doesn't make the gallery notable. I don't think that is a valid argument. Art galleries only receive significant coverage for what they do because of who they represent. Their purpose is to represent their artists. It is what they are known for. The relationship with their artists is essential, not incidental. 291 is notable because Edward Steichen, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Gertrude Käsebier and Clarence H. White all gained critical recognition through exhibitions at 291. The Art of This Century gallery is notable for giving Jackson Pollock his first solo show. Julien Levy is notable for introducing Henri Cartier-Bresson to the U.S. and Man Ray's first major show. To apply NOTINHERITED to these galleries and claim that the notability of their artists does not matter is mistaken. Of course it matters; these galleries were instrumental in making their artists notable. There have been objections to this claim of instrumentality (although I don't remember exactly where) that artists dind't need their galleries to become notable. For example: Picasso would have become famous no matter who represented him. But that hypothetical doesn't make any difference to the historical fact that Picasso became well-known, due to Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler's efforts, so Kahnweiler is notable for promoting Picasso, regardless of whether Picasso might not have needed him. Kahnweiler doesn't "inherit" notability from Picasso, but the nature of the relationship between the two (and the fact that it is well-documented and verifiable) makes Kahnweiler notable. The same principle applies to many of the galleries that operate on the primary market. NOTINHERITED possibly applies to the secondary market, but not to the types of galleries under discussion. Vexations (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"We are not here to set trends (or enforce them) but to report them."
"NYTimes piece"
The reviewer is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for. That sort of substance can be put into our article on that gallery and I would say that is the most important information that can be found in an article on such an art gallery.
"You cannot get what a 'reviewer is trying to tell their audience what they think the gallery stands for' unless they explicitly say so."
"Inferring it yourself is WP:OR and completely acceptable."
"it is the artists and art they produce, rather than the place that art is presented"
"As Arthur Danto has argued, these galleries produce the context that makes an object into a work of art. The review of the art in the gallery, is a review of the gallery also"
"as I noted above, Arthur Danto has discussed the role of art galleries in creating culture."
"Bus stop was claiming, among other outlandish things, that galleries should be considered notable because they make a creative contribution to an artwork..."
{{cite web}}
|dead-url=
I want to say, in the most civil way that I can: it is very frustrating that those of you who clearly do not have significant subject area expertise, refuse to listen to those on this thread who do. This is a large reason why this conversation is going nowhere.
The fact that you refer back to Leonardo shows just how little you know about the topic. The place where his, Michelangelo, and Van Eyck's art was displayed are quite notable... take for example St Bavo's Cathedral, Ghent, Sistine Chapel, Basilica of San Domenico, Florence Cathedral, Siena Cathedral, just to pick out the obvious ones. This is Art History 101: art was produced on commission by the church and the ultra wealthy patrons (often for the church) until the reformation and the rise of the Dutch mercantile empire. Only with Vermeer/Rembrandt et al do we have paintings made ‘on spec’ and thus, for sale at all. The art gallery as we know it doesn’t come into form until the 19th century.
As I said, (and Vexations has underscored) Arthur Danto is central amongst many who have discussed the changes in the political economy of art production and art markets. Danto and Brian O'Doherty have defined the role of the gallery and specifically of the White cube gallery. Calling him "one person" and asking "What about the rest of the art world?" is specious.
If you actually want to have an argument that doesn't just devolve into WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT please at least do your research, or listen to the expertise of those that have it. I doubt you would be doing this about a Biolistic Particle Delivery System or Stereotactic surgery.
Why are you doing this here? --Theredproject (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
"Your idea of '3 years with continuous exhibits and a notable roster of articles' are all aspects I would see to promote the gallery..."
"This is not something for which subject matter expertise is required."
OK I am getting a bit confused now. Who is arguing for what?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"the link (in terms of publicity) is too close for independent notability"
The publicity these galleries get is due to what they host, not their own notability. With out them hosting the latest art by world renowned "artist" Bert Terrible no RS would even notice them.
I think we are all agreed that, for a gallery to be deemed notable, there needs to be coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the gallery. The actual dispute is about what specifically those sources need to cover. Are reviews of the exhibits hosted by the gallery enough, or do the source have to discuss the gallery as an art venue? This is where we get into the INHERITANCE weeds. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Neither of the above. We should apply the (nonexistent) "notability criteria for commercial galleries". Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"notability criteria for commercial galleries"
can we have a concrete proposal, we are just going round in circles, but on different tracks now. This is going nowhere, slowly, lets conclude it now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"Does this involve relaxing the criteria"
I think the problem is with the understanding of WP:NOTINHEIRITED, and the role of galleries in the production and contextualization of art that produces its cultural meaning and value, and thus give rise to the conditions that create what we call Notability. I also fundamentally disagree with the presence of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments by editors and admins who have zero subject area expertise, and do not understand any of the subtleties of the matter.--Theredproject (talk)
There are no "notability criteria for commercial galleries". We could devise criteria and guidelines specifically applicable to galleries of contemporary art. I am saying "galleries of contemporary art" because that is where the problem lies. We are not just talking about "number of years in operation with a solid track record of exhibitions" but also sources on the gallery and also sources on exhibitions that have been held at the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"number of years in operation with a solid track record of exhibitions"
"If there are sources discussing the gallery, then we can deem the gallery notable."
"No persons "culture" is better or inherently more notable then anyone elses."
"I asked why, not should, I asked for a reason why they are different."
"There's nothing more to it than that."
"art shop"
"record shop"
art shop
"That's basing the argument that galleries are the only way an artist can get recognized"
"We are an encyclopedia, not a directory"
"directory"
I look away from this discussion for a couple days, and it's shifted from galleries to producers/musicians. :) Ultimately, no criteria should make it possible to have articles on things that haven't received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That doesn't correspond to what actually matters in the real world, of course, but it's part of what makes this project work. We do have several guidelines from the old days that have been grandfathered in without that assurance, and they are responsible for heaps of poorly sourced, spammy, or permastub articles. ...But while they're difficult to fix (the restructuring of WP:ORG a couple years ago and recent deprecation of WP:PORNBIO are steps in the right direction), I don't think we've introduced new guidelines that do that in a long while. Subject-specific guidelines should aid in explaining the indicators that correlate to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They can also restrict our interpretation of such (as WP:ORG does somewhat, and as WP:FRINGEN, WP:EVENT, etc. do in other ways). If other SNGs aren't doing what they should be doing (I would agree in some cases), then the answer is to fix those. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Earlier in the conversation I mentioned that I think there are certain criteria that we can use in an SNG. It is one of my contentions that participating in the highly selective Art Basel art fair for more than five years is a good indication that sources exists. As I offered Masem, I could show that 90% of all galleries that meet that criterion do in fact meet the GNG. I have just added Bortolami (gallery). I don't specifically mention Art Basel in the article, but there are other patterns that I think are worth considering. 75% of the roster consists of artist who have an article, for example. Yes, I'm aware of the circular argument, but you'll notice that only the article on Ivan Morley explicitly mentions that he is represented by Bortolami, so there is in fact no self-referential claim of significance. Anyway, have at it. Prove that I'm wrong. Vexations (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I think what is most frustrating about this discussion for those of us with professional experience in the arts is unwillingness to acknowledge that artists do not get famous on their own. They are specifically chosen and supported by art galleries. It is a symbiotic relationship. Like it or not (many artists do not like it), galleries and exhibition venues are the certifying source for an artist's practice, both in the real world and the academic world. Scientists need journal articles; artists need exhibitions in good galleries. The gallery is an important part of the art world and does deserve specific notability guidelines, or to at least be integrated into WP:CREATIVE. I notice over at Sports notability guideline that they specifically acknowledges the symbiotic role of coaches and horse trainers-- another symbiotic relationship that enables the notability of the athlete. To wit:
So it is not as if it's not possible or sensible to create SNG for those in a symbiotic and foundational relationship with the main notable person. I think what we actualy need to do is spin off WP:Artist into a criteria that deals only with artists, art galleries and curators. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
limited understanding
"Heck, no one gets mentioned in reliable sources without the reporters or authors who write those pieces; are all of them notable?"
That being said, surely you've noticed that consensus is very solidly against the notion of special treatment/SNGs for art galleries, and it's long past time to lose graciously and move on. It is not that we don't understand what the gallery partisans are saying. It's that we don't agree with what they're saying. Ravenswing 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind how this discussion started: complaints that galleries should be exempt from NCORP. Unfortunately, nothing has yet shown that galleries should not be covered by NCORP, as they are businesses first and foremost. With all the discussion of producers and couch (who are people and not subject to NCORP), we're getting off track here.
NCORP does not allow any exemption for any organization from its overall arcing metrics "No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools". So art museums also must pass NCORP as well. We haven't made any exemptions for this. All this pandering to "galleries are implicitly notable for the type of artists they feature" simply does not work in the context of NCORP, and if we're not letting schools squeak by, we're certainly not going to let galleries squeak by either. No one is denying that in the art world that galleries serve an important function, but if that function is not well documented for a specific galleries, or limited to a narrow set of literature like trade magazines, that's even more reason to not have articles per WP:AUD.
I do believe those wanting the exemption here are not at all trying to commercially promote art galleries, nor are any of the art galleries raised in question here actively pursuing inclusion on WP for commercial purposes, but we need to stress that WP is rife with problems with barely notable companies and organizations using WP as part of a SEO advertising approach to boost their sales and services. NCORP is written as an across-the-board guideline so that no organization aiming to promote itself on WP can slip through. If we go lax in one article, that can lead to more organizations slipping through elsewhere. Its nothing against art galleries, but they still need to comply with this --Masem (t) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"SEO advertising approach"
"a significant SEO going on for art galleries"
"We can't weaken NCORP for any class of organization just because we feel the GNG is too restrictive for elements of that class."
"promotional"
"I doubt there's a significant SEO going on for art galleries."
"It doesn't prevent an article on an organization with appropriate GNG sourcing to be created, but stresses that it should be at the GNG level when it is created or otherwise will likely be deleted because of the active stance against promotional content."
"While those of us in this conversation might not be trying to promote any specific gallery (or even galleries in general)... we have learned from experience that there are others who will (Such as unscrupulous gallery owners)."
So do we have any actual proposals yet?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"I was not party to any other such weakening of policy"
"unscrupulous gallery owner"
"creating a lesser standard"
"weakening of policy"
"have any commercial interest...here"
How long is this going to be dragged on for?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"So as to see if this is unique to art shops, or if it apl;lies to any other money making business. The issue of record shops that promote up and coming bands is very analogous."
"Yes, I understand the typo might have confused you."
WP:INHERIT and WP:INHERITORG, sections in guideline pages concerning notability and deletion process, are sometimes interpreted along the lines of saying that aggregate entities cannot inherit notability from the notability of a few things that they played a key role in originating. Two examples; there are more out there:
The understanding I gleaned from following the discussions and looking at the policy is that WP:INHERIT/INHERITORG assert nothing of the sort; the examples in WP:INHERIT concerning item/aggregate issues all concern the opposite direction: just because a musician is notable doesn't establish notability of one of their less-known songs, and the discussion in INHERITORG does not seem more general in a way that extends to this. Hence I conclude that the appeals to these guidelines in those AfDs were wrong.
The above examples of galleries and websites can be seen as particular instances of venues, which will also cover publishers, conferences and the like. In view of the fact that the guidelines are being appealed to on a matter they do not seem to address, I think this criterion should be explicitly discussed. Two suggestions:
I prefer the first option for two reasons: First, it is analogous to many of the ways in which people become notable. E.g., authors most often become notable through writing notable books, academics through publishing high-impact scholarship, or journalists through breaking important stories; when a venue is worth knowing about, it is likewise most often because of its role in bringing work to the public. Second, even if there is little more to be said about the venue than the conjunction of these individual publishing acts, this conjunction itself is often interesting, for reasons that User:Bus stop argued in the AfDs on several contemporary galleries. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"any topic"
apples and bananas
"upscale ... areas"
"selling things with which one can decorate your home or office"
"Those that do are written about in the art literature"
"noted"
"The nature of a consensus-based system"
"apples and bananas"
"one that argued the fruit vendor analogy was off topic."
I am a big fan of art galleries and visit them with great regularity and occasionally make purchases from them. Some, I have visited many times and consistently enjoy the work they display. Without a doubt, some commercial art galleries are notable. That is because reliable sources have devoted significant coverage to the specific gallery itself as an ongoing institution. This type of coverage will describe the founders of the gallery and its history over the years, and the current management and their philosophy about art, in connection with discussing the gallery as an ongoing business venture. Instead of simply reviewing a current exhibit, it will probably list a number of successful exhibits from the past. It may discuss the architecture of the gallery, and the impact of the gallery on various artists careers over time. Galleries that have received this type of coverage are notable. On the other hand, galleries that receive only passing mention in connection with current exhibits are not notable and articles about such galleries should be deleted. In conclusion, I totally disagree with Bus stop's argument here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
For years I've been thinking about the challenges and complexities of trying to handle the wp:notability criteria. Recently becoming active at new article curation/review has become a firehose of additional information and perspective. The guidelines have failed to cover what we know intuitively......that that my son's kiddie hockey team with tons of in-depth coverage in local newspapers should not have an article despite full compliance with wp:GNG, but that Acar (bivalve) with only one tertiary source identified probably should. We also have massive amounts of articles which we know should be articles (such as those on species and towns) which require exceptions to wp:notability. Numerically, Wikipedia is sliding towards becoming a listing of sports people & statistics, and a directory of business, products, products and people in cases where any of them can benefit from having an article.
There is also an interesting structural note. Nowhere is wp:notability actually defined! The WP:Notability guideline structurally has two parts and roles; the first is broader than notability, the second is narrower than notability. The beginning of the guideline contains the master statement of what can have a separate article in Wikipedia, with compliance with wp:not included in that. It establishes the "place" of the remainder of wp:gng in the scheme of this as well as that of the SNG's. The remainder of wp:GNG and the SNG's contain requirements but do not specify what wp:notability is. This is inevitable because meeting the "notability" criteria is actually the complex interchange of latter-GNG, the SNG's and wp:not compliance defined by the very beginning of wp:notability.
While complete acknowledgement of the above might need big changes, I think that there is an easy less perfect way to combine all of the above to our advantage. The structurally broader role of the beginning of wp:notability can be used to introduce "degree of encyclopedicness" into the "separate article?" question. My first idea on how to do that would be to add to "2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.". Add the following to it: "Extra consideration should be given to topics which easily comply with wp:not, and extra scrutiny given to topics which only marginally comply with the policy."
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
When I started this thread the main group of articles that I have in mind from drinking from the firehose at new article curation usually isn't some academic vs. popular culture quandary. Under any possibility, popular culture is firmly accepted. The focus is more on stuff that really isn't articles that is passing through the curation/AFD process in numerically huge numbers due to some weaknesses in guidelines, and where just a tiny bit of extra consideration for the enclyclopeciness of the topic would help things much. In most cases they might take one topic which would be a good pop culture or sports article and split it up into 20 articles. Examples are:
For the ones that I have in mind the typical article consists of 1-2 sentences and then tables of information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
So most of the sampling in the list has these attributes:
A guess is that there are about 300 per day of these going into Wikipedia (getting passed or autopatrolled). Maybe having a million of these articles in Wikipedia is a good thing. If not, a note in the opening 5% of this guideline (which is not just about wp:notability) is a good way to help. Which was to add the following to #2: " Add the following to it: "Extra consideration should be given to topics which easily comply with wp:not, and extra scrutiny given to topics which only marginally comply with the policy." North8000 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record, I am not defending data-only pages in principle; I believe many of them should not exist (viz. local and most collegiate athletics results). But in some cases - such as municipal election results and pandemic deaths - I think systematic coverage to include and provide a framework for data in an organized way (geography in this case) should be constrained by the availability of reliable information and not by the quality of secondary commentary (which can develop over time and may be in other languages or behind paywalls). At what level this information should be organized- in these cases, at what level of geography - may depend on the specific domain, but I would like to see a presumption of inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Title says it all, thanks in advance. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 07:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at new/ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglican churches in Leicester and in three related closed AFDs has perplexed some about what wp:LISTN requires or allows about list-articles. User:Epiphyllumlover has some very good faith objections, I think (please speak up). My characterization of the issue: There were several bad list-articles of Baptist churches in Leicester, Methodist churches in Leicester, etc., which were mere directories listing 40 or 50 names and addresses of some current and past churches. I think the churches listed came from an available online database of current and past churches in Leicester (itself clearly a directory, only, with no substantial info besides locations). AFDs about the list-articles brought up an unusual amount of conflict. Due I think to the existence of several published scholarly-type articles, several being by author Rimmington, which seemed, at least superficially, to be spot on about the topics. However, IMO the Rimmington articles and the like provided nothing valid to build a list-article about churches; the Rimmington articles included statements similar to "there were 20 Methodist churches in Leicester by date X", but no useful information about those churches to cover in a list-article. And Rimmington's articles, whose publication at all seems to be an odd/weird accomplishment, themselves emphasize that there is nothing special at all about Methodist churches in Leicester or about Methodism or Methodists in Leicester; to me they seem like odd, too-local exhaustive catalogues of info. We don't publish exhaustive recapitulations, or even summaries, of exhaustive catalogues such as, say, car-model-specific parts lists and repair manuals. Also, no useful or usable information available anywhere else about the churches could be turned up, besides for one or a very few of them that happen to be listed buildings. Therefore IMO the few notable ones can have articles, and those can be linked from Leicester article and from already-existing, big, denomination-specific list-articles such as List of Methodist churches, but IMO we don't want a separate list of the very few notable ones, nor do we want the laundry/directory-type lists of 40 or 50 non-notable ones. There is no need to help readers to navigate, either, because there is no there there.
The LISTN section of this page currently states:
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
Here, the Rimmington sources do seem to mention the group or set of "Baptist churches in Leicester" or whatever, so LISTN would seem to imply that a list-article is justified. But, there's nothing to say! There are no sources to build a list-article! Usually, at least for many many list-articles that I have developed, there is plenty of info/detail available about individual examples/items for the list-article (e.g. the items which I put into List of fire stations, say), and there is only some question whether the set or group is a thing. So a source like Rimmington would sometimes be nice to have available, to support the group being a legitimate thing. Does wp:LISTN need to be modified to clarify that discussion as a group does not suffice to justify having a list-article, if there is no substantial content for the list-article? --Doncram (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A relevant discussion on notability of fictional characters can be seen here. Jhenderson 777 22:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The American Physiological Society has published a number of profiles in their journal on "Living History" subjects, "to recognize senior members who have made extraordinary contributions during their career to the advancement of the discipline and profession of physiology". These include:
Half of these are missing articles. Can we reasonably assume that the subjects of these profiles are notable? BD2412 T 19:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.
My question is: the sources containing a list are not complete and the editor who creates the article (Wikipedia list) will have to do Original Research to complete the list. So is that a problem? Do the reliable sources have to include all the elements in the list? Or maybe I can do some Original Research to find more elements to add to the list? Avram25 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: That's not a problem, the asteroid is named for sure after a Bulgarian entity - for example this one. From your answer I understand that you would add it to the list, because it's certain it's a Bulgarian name. Therefore, once there is at least one source to talk about that kind of grouping (Bulgarian names in space), it's ok to do OR and to add more items to complete the list. Because it is considered a general research allowance, like simple math calculations. Avram25 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
If we find red links to non-notable subjects should we unlink them or remove them? Gah4 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ever since I started participating in deletion discussions, I thought of something new. Some religious figures and beliefs are not sufficiently notable, or only rely on one source, and can't be on Wikipedia. I was thinking the new policy about Gods and religions. Kori (@) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree to let wp:GNG cover it, without creating a SNG. Probably a bit of the unwritten common sense that gets applied also counts. If it has been around for a thousand years, at new article curation I just look for enough sourcing to establish that and that it is covered, which is a bit lower bar regarding in-depth secondary source coverage. If I ran into a neologism that somebody is trying to get established and get established as being religious by having a Wikipedia article, then I think that GNG should be fully applied. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think GNG is inadequate. Your reason seems to be that some articles only have one source and aren't notable; doesn't GNG take care of that? Ikjbagl (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
