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. While there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus for why this article should be kept, the consensus that it should be kept seems almost unanimous after two weeks of discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Nailya Alexander Gallery

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

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

This gallery does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Qono ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Qono ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Qono ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Qono ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Qono ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qono ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, seems well sourced to me. What am I missing? That it's sourced in art magazines? Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Randy Kryn, The sources are all industry-specific and do not provide significant coverage of the gallery. They are merely directory listings or are covering an exhibition held at the gallery, not the gallery itself. Qono ( talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  The notability of the gallery, mentioned below, also includes the shows exhibited there. It's a 15 year old established gallery, with sourced articles about the 15 year anniversary. So per NotButtigieg as well. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Randy Kryn, See my response below. Qono ( talk) 01:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the ping, although J947's reasoning is closer to my view. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Randy Kryn, Can you clarify what you mean? J947 has said he doesn't see evidence of the article meeting the general notability guidelines, but you have voted to keep the article, indicating that you do think it meets the notability guidelines. Qono ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  "...the part of GNG that says it does not need to be the main topic of the source material [to qualify as significant coverage]." If you answer, we're supposed to put additional comments below the relist. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Shows in this gallery are regularly reviewed in the New York Times, The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal and the arts media. NotButtigieg ( talk) 11:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  NotButtigieg, Though shows in the gallery may be covered in reliable sources, the coverage is of the artwork displayed there, not the gallery itself, so this does not constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. Qono ( talk) 17:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono, Please notice that there are two articles in reputable publications about this gallery's fifteenth anniversary. NotButtigieg ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  NotButtigieg, Randy Kryn The two articles mentioned about the gallery's anniversary are actually just repostings of the same press release provided by the gallery, and so are not coverage independent of the subject. Even if it were, it does not constitute significant coverage. Also, neither of the publishers are particularly reputable and both are industry-specific. This gallery does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Qono ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—you say "They are merely directory listings or are covering an exhibition held at the gallery, not the gallery itself." Art galleries are notable for holding art exhibitions. A "press release provided by the gallery" is evidence that the gallery is holding art exhibitions. If the gallery does this over a sufficient length of time, that art gallery should be considered "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. You want coverage of "the gallery itself". What does that mean? Do we need coverage of the bathrooms? How high the ceilings are? The lighting available for illuminating art objects? "The gallery itself" happens to be almost irrelevant to whether or not we should have an article on an art gallery. We have articles on Mike the headless chicken—but Wikipedia is not going to have an article on a photography gallery functioning in New York City since 2004? Bus stop ( talk) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, On Wikipedia, art galleries, like everything else, are notable because of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Simply holding exhibitions does not make a gallery notable. Further, a press release is not independent of the subject. If editors cannot show that an article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, it should be deleted. This is Wikipedia policy. See WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORG. Qono ( talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  It's a guideline, not a policy. An important difference. Also, please read the guideline MOS:LISTGAP to make sure you don't change indentation types. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—art is an entity very different from other entities that might be for sale. We are not slaves to policy. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop ( talk) 02:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, the policies and guidelines represent the consensus of editors and should be followed unless there is a very good reason not to. "Art is special" is not a compelling argument to break from established consensus about notability. Qono ( talk) 16:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—you are misquoting me. I did not say "Art is special". Bus stop ( talk) 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, I was paraphrasing you. I think it is a fair paraphrasing of "art is an entity very different from other entities that might be for sale", but I will try to specify when I am quoting and paraphrasing in the future. Qono ( talk) 18:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm unsure of this currently as I feel like there is some SIGCOV out there; I don't think I've seen enough to establish GNG yet (I'd like some links to news articles). Press releases should not and do not contribute to GNG. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 00:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  J947, I've looked, but all the mentions of this gallery in reliable sources are incidental to reviews of the work exhibited there. The gallery itself is not the subject of any of the articles in reliable sources. WP:ORGDEPTH says that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Qono ( talk) 01:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'm no stranger to this area; I even made an essay on it. That essay references this the part of GNG that says it does not need to be the main topic of the source material [to qualify as significant coverage]. I have a lax view on what constitutes SIGCOV and in my opinion in topics like this only 30/40-odd words are needed in each search, as that is enough to base a decent stub on and is direct and in sufficent detail. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'll trust the others because they know much more about the proper notability of galleries than me. Keep. Basically, this article should function as a collation of substantial mentions. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. An article about a gallery located in midtown Manhattan for the past 15 years showing photographs of Russian and American origin is worthy of an article. It is as simple as that. Policy has it wrong, in this case. Policy is not cognizant of the unique nature of art. Policy is like a bull in a china shop—in this instance. Policy is demanding inapplicable standards be met for the subject of an article, in this instance. The expenses are enormous in keeping an enterprise such as this afloat and art is so indefinable that we have to resort to other metrics to determine notability. Do we have strong indication that this is a functioning art gallery? I think so. The existence of the art gallery can't be an enormous hoax, though I have never visited it. Concerning art galleries, you are not going to get the same sort of confirmation of notability that you are going to get for a noteworthy entity marketing widgets. Marketing art is quintessentially about creating demand where none existed before. Bus stop ( talk) 17:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, the Arbitration Committee has confirmed that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. So, the notability guidelines apply to this article and others about art galleries. Editors need to show that this gallery meets the notability guideline of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Qono ( talk) 16:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—punctilious application of policy should coincide with what one feels is the preferred course of action. Please tell me, in your own words, without recourse to policy, why the article on the "Nailya Alexander Gallery" should be deleted. I'm interested in knowing your motivation. Is it on the merits of the article, apart from how policy comes to bear, that you feel this article should be deleted? Or are you simply trying to apply policy? Bus stop ( talk) 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, I think the article should be deleted because the subject of the article is not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Qono ( talk) 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—can you not expand a little further on why you feel the subject of this article is "not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia"? Bus stop ( talk) 19:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, my feelings about what constitutes notability in this context largely align with the guidelines. There is no indication that the gallery is particularly remarkable or important. A simple Google search reveals no substantial information about the gallery that might indicate that it should be included in an encyclopedia. If there was a clear indicator that the gallery is somehow remarkable or noteworthy, I would accept that—but so far my good-faith efforts to find those indicators or other significant coverage of the gallery have turned up nothing. That it holds some rare prints and exhibits artwork is not remarkable. There needs to be evidence that it plays an important role in the cultural life of the city or has a place in art history or the history of photography. Qono ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—you are saying "There needs to be evidence that it plays an important role in the cultural life of the city or has a place in art history or the history of photography. For 15 years the gallery has survived in an expensive city. The gallery is involved in the art market and NYC is known as an important city for its art market. Does that not suggest for the gallery an "important role in the cultural life of the city"? Artforum tells us "Nailya Alexander Gallery specializes in Russian vintage (1920s-1950s) and contemporary photography." Bus stop ( talk) 20:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bus stop, I do not think that the gallery's mere existence in NYC, no matter the duration or the local real estate market, is sufficient to indicate notability. The gallery's specialization does not indicate its significance. If a reliable source said that their specialization was substantial or somehow remarkable, I might think otherwise. Qono ( talk) 20:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono—how can a non-notable gallery exist in NYC for 15 years? It is notable by definition. The reason is that it is selling art. What is fine-art photography? It cannot be defined. The gallery is notable because it is contributing to, along with the artists, the creation of a product. And it is doing this over a sufficient period of time that should indicate to Wikipedia that it is a notable entity. For 15 years the Nailya Alexander Gallery has probably convinced the art-buying public that something that heretofore did not exist—new art—is worth paying money for. Bus stop ( talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Grace Glueck in 2006 in the New York Times reviews the work of Alexey Titarenko at the Nailya Alexander Gallery. Bus stop ( talk) 06:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Well-established art galleries are of substantial cultural significance, and should easily pass the bar of notability. BD2412 T 21:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  BD2412, you're right, but the way Wikipedia determines if something is substantially culturally significant is through editors providing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This gallery does not meet that criteria and so is not substantially culturally significant (notable) enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Qono ( talk) 16:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Qono, can you explain what, in your view, makes The Eye of Photography Magazine and ArtDaily insufficient as sources to provide coverage independent of the subject? I am also somewhat curious as to why you are disputing every single comment made by anyone else in this discussion. BD2412 T 19:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  BD2412, the sources you mention appear to be simply republishing a press release distributed by the gallery and so this coverage doesn't apply because it is not independent of the subject. I am engaging with discussion in this thread to try to reach a consensus that is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Qono ( talk) 20:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  I have founded and added a reference from a book in print. BD2412 T 00:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  20 words direct and in detail isn't really enough for SIGCOV to be satisfied though. J 947 ^{( c)}, at 04:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  Nevertheless, it meets the standards for noteworthiness within the article, as it underscores the role of this gallery as not just presenting contemporary artists, but preserving older works of historical significance. BD2412 T 04:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Clearly meets notability requirements for art galleries, per the votes above. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep It clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for NCORP, as there is not much coverage about the gallery itself out there. There are one or two decent sources in the article; maybe it just barely meets WP:BARE. I searched for the gallery, the gallery +collection, the gallery + founded+2004, Nailya Alexander alone and so on. All I found were trival mentions. Their collection might be important, but all I found were photo credits for the gallery (for example in this blurb for the Jewish Museum show of Russian photographers). Perhaps that is enough, if they have been distributing important photographs.. even if no one has written much abotu that contribution? Anyway, this AfD seems like it is going to slip through the WP:NOTINHERITED guidelines, so I am happy to jump on board and IAR. Keeping it would be the proper non-policy based decision to make, and I encourage all others to get on the keep train. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't have a problem with a gallery gaining some measure of its notability from the artists it shows, as that is what galleries do. This does not seem to be a situation where the gallery, by dint of having been chosen by the artist, is getting publicity. Rather, it appears that the galleries is choosing which artists they will showcase, and thereby making the artists notable. With respect to this gallery, at least, it appears to have undertaken efforts to pluck long-forgotten photographers from obscurity and showcased their work in ways that brought them new appreciation. BD2412 T 04:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes but it is the photographers who get the coverage here, not the gallery. There aren't really any valid policy-based keep arguments in this AfD... which is why it is an interesting AfD. It's a bit of a rejection of the current notability policies. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

When you are talking about artists born recently, a gallery of contemporary art should "inherit" notability from the artist and from the artwork. That is because to some degree the art gallery may have "discovered" the artist (and the artwork) and to some degree the art gallery may be taking a chance on unestablished artists even if they did not "discover" them. That is just my opinion and it is not enshrined in policy. Bus stop ( talk) 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I think the same applies to galleries publicizing older artists whose work might otherwise be overlooked or forgotten. I am actually somewhat perplexed by the notion that a source discussing the presentation of an artist by a gallery is not a source about the gallery, in much the same way that I would be perplexed by an assertion that a source on a basketball game was not a source about the teams playing in the game, because it is the individual players rather than the team doing the playing. BD2412 T 00:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ BD2412: A well-known restaurant hires a chef. The chef is profiled in the NYTimes but they only talk about the chef. Is the restaurant more notable? Not by our rules. In any case, this was all discussed to death recently on the WP:NOTABILITY talk page, which clocks in at 30,762 words. The clear concensus was that all of the possible arguments to make an exception to NCORP (galleries are special; notability is inherited from the artists; established galleries are special; galleries curate and develop and artist's career, so they are notable for that; reviews of individual artists are dependent on the gallery's work so they contribute to the notability of the gallery itself; and so on) are not acceptable exceptions. This AfD has many similar arguments, which aren't valid reasons to keep. Just don't ping anyone from that discussion, as they will come over and derail the WP:IAR keep train that we have going here. TLDR: yes we should have an SNG for galleries. We do not because it would open too many holes for subjective interpretations in the notability rules. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 00:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ ThatMontrealIP: For a single instance, that might not render notability, but if the same restaurant hires a series of up-and-coming chefs, each of whom is profiled in the NYTimes with even some small mention being made of the restaurant in each profile, and if the same restaurant also briefly revives the career of some retired and long-forgotten great chefs, and those chefs are similarly profiled in the NYTimes with some mention being made of the restaurant, then in the aggregate it is the restaurant that is being profiled, for its choices in hiring chefs. Of course, it isn't the case here that the gallery itself is never the subject of commentary; the issue there is whether commentary directed to the gallery is independent enough or high-profile enough. However, we aren't looking at any one source in isolation here, but the universe of available sources taken as a whole. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

OK lets skip the analogies. The coverage for this subject is really poor. The mentions of the gallery itself in reviews of its shows are largely "showing at Nailya Alexanger gallery" more or less. There aren't any policy reasons for keeping it, and no convincing ones have been advanced yet. This subject fails the notability test by a long shot. But I am still on the keep train, for IAR reasons. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

ThatMontrealIP, can you clarify why you are "on the keep train for IAR reasons"? Do you think that following the notability guidelines prevents us from maintaining or improving Wikipedia? I'm trying to understand why you are applying IAR in this case, since you agree that coverage of this gallery "is really poor." Qono ( talk) 15:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Qono I !voted keep because I think our policies are wrong. We should recognize galleries, but our policies are preventing it. So IAR. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Qono—the notability guidelines are ignorant of art galleries. Art galleries are not like other organizations and companies. That isn't to say that all art galleries get a pass. We need to be discerning. But nothing in WP:ORG addresses art galleries. So discernment particular to art galleries isn't a possibility if we are to adhere to the strict letter of overly-general policy. (I'm certainly not meaning to speak for ThatMontrealIP. I am only expressing my own views.) Bus stop ( talk) 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bus stop: I agree entirely with what you just wrote. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The gallery is blindly notable and really close AFD, we should not waste more time on it. Shashanksinghvi334 ( talk) 06:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I wanted to call attention to a recent and extensive discussion on this very topic on the Notability talk page (pointed out by ThatMontrealIP). I'm not sure what the consensus of that discussion is so I have requested that an admin officially close that thread. Either way, the arguments there are very relevant here and may be helpful for participants and the eventual closer of this discussion. Qono ( talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It's one of several notable galleries in the Fuller Building, itself a notable venue. FWIW, I've been there, most recently 11 September 2019 for a major opening for their show on avant garde Soviet photography. Bearian ( talk) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There do seem to be a number of articles on north American galleries whose importance eludes me, e.g. Tina Kim Gallery. (Yes I know, othercrapexists.) -- Hoary ( talk) 04:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it should be merged with Tina Kim (art dealer). Bus stop ( talk) 05:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

i would support that.... Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

. . . except that I have similar difficulty discerning the notability of Tina Kim (art dealer). -- Hoary ( talk) 23:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

"The whole area may be a mess" and then again the whole area may not be a mess. A general problem is that the odds are stacked against finding notability for galleries and gallery-owners because their work is behind-the-scenes. Little in their activity serves to provide notability for galleries and gallery-owners. Effort is devoted to providing exposure for artists and artworks. Bus stop ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Collector Daily could be called a blog. But whatever it is, it has commentary on photo exhibitions (and, irrelevant here, photobooks) that -- although too reverent for my personal taste -- is thoughtful and signed. A quick look for mentions of it in the archives of WP:RSN doesn't show anything. I think one could make judicious use of comments made at Collector Daily on the taste, enterprisingness, imagination, etc of this gallery. Such comments should be retrievable via the website's page of Nailya Alexander reviews. Unfortunately I don't now have time to do this myself. (I also don't know whether Collector Daily is one of several similar websites, or is unusual.) -- Hoary ( talk)

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.