Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Fine Art

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The House of Fine Art (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)

Non-notable business, does not satisfy WP:NCORP. It's relatively hard for a commercial art gallery to become notable by our standards, but a few major ones do manage it; this is not one of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two crypto trade rags, which do not help toward N per WP:ORGCRIT. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ritchie333, the two refs you dropped here were"
this brief listing in a "thing to do in London in July"
a cryptoblog, which made it the third such ref cited. All three fail ORGCRIT under trade rags, and we are generally shunning refs like these pursuant to to the crypto general sanctions which in turn arose from all the promotional pressure and hype around cryptocurrencies. There are currently none used in this page.
Would you please consider your !vote? This does not meet WP:NCORP as updated back in March. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to comment here after cleaning up the article, but the page creator is indulging in unexplained reverts, which has halted my editing there. I've partially cleaned up the page from redundant sources without removing any content from the page – see this revision & my comments at the article's talk page. Once they stop their disruption, I will clean it up further. BTW, now I am logging out for today, as I've already spent hours waiting for their response. Anyway, both the page creator & the AfD's participants are welcome to discuss my edits at the article's talk page. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not for cleanup. Read WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:DEADLINE. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with these essays, but read my comment again to understand its context. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I just went through this carefully. The page as it stands now is like this. There were two sources that were simply publishing the same press release. There was an artist's website, and the website of another gallery that didn't actually mention HOFA. Two bad crypto blogs. The Forbes piece was a Forbes contributor blog (so not useful for N) and on top of that, was entirely derivative of the Evening Standard piece with no additional useful information. What is left, is an interview with an artist exhibiting there (not useful for N), a "here's what to do in London" brief listing, which is not useful for N, and a brief blurb about Ilhwa Kim’s Sensory Portrait show opening, which is also not useful for N. The Evening Standard piece is useful. That is one source. We really should delete, as the promotional pressure with all the bad sourcing is very, very clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Although Jytdog has already cleaned up the article properly, just for the clarity of the participants, I am choosing this old revision, which contains all of the 17 citations, so that they won't feel that any source was overlooked. My analysis shows that even if we include the Forbes source, there is nothing more than trivial coverage here.
I will start my analysis with the most in-depth sources of the article:
The main focus of this source lies on cryptocurrency, although it does have few independent bits about the gallery:
"A Mayfair art gallery claims to be the first to put up its entire collection for purchase with cryptocurrency...(HOFA), which sells high-end fine art...Gallery prices start at about £4,000 but rise to about £250,000 for pieces by Italian sculptor Stefano Bombardieri. The collection includes works by French sculptor Richard Orlinski and American Hunt Slonem...The exhibition will start in London at the beginning of October..
Note that this source is cited twice in the revision chosen by me, i.e. this & the Ref 11 are one and the same.
This one is a puffery piece, and reads like a press release. In fact, according to the article's talk page discussion, it is one. Anyway, this is what it mentions:
Following the success of their first gallery in London, they have since opened a gallery in the stunning location of Psarou Beach in Mykonos, a third gallery in Mayfair and have now taken their brand to the US, with a gallery in the plush setting of West Hollywood...To mark the opening of the new Mayfair gallery, a summer exhibition titled ‘The Edit’ will be taking place from 4 July – 8 August 2018....Headline artists include Romina Ressia, Tian, Robert Standish and Marco Grassi.
Rest of the article just gives details of the artists, which are irrelevant here.
This news article was published two days after the LES source, and it basically repeats the same info covered in the LES, and repeats a line of the Luxe Life source. The main focus of the source again lies on cryptocurrency, and it includes HOFA spokesperson's comments, so this one isn't independent. Anyway, here's the only details which are different from the LES source:
...inspirational works by the likes of Zhuang Hong Yi...HOFA first noticed a demand for Bitcoin payments last year and decided to approach the digital money platform Uphold to offer a wider range of payment, and capitalize on the demand.
Now before analysing the next batch of refs, I am quoting from the note 3 of the WP:N:
It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
  • Now I will list the sources which are mere copies of the above three sources, i.e. LES, Forbes, & Luxe Life sources. To start with, these copies don't count toward notability, as is clear by the WP:N quote. Anyway, once the original news regarding cryptocurrency transaction was published in LES & Forbes sources on 7 August 2018 & 9 August 2018 respectively, it was copied & published by the multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites on 9 August 2018. Most of these sources don't have editorial oversight & they republished the same news without attribution. So, let alone counting toward notability, they seem to be in violation of the WP:COPYVIOEL:
This is a word-for-word copy of the Luxe Life source.
This is merely a listing of the The Edit exhibition, on which the Luxe Life source is focusing – this source basically summaries the Luxe Life source in two lines.
This a copy of LES source.
This a copy of the LES source (with attribution) – the source is providing the link to the LES article at the end under the description of "Read more here."
This source is a user-generated content, as I've explained in my comment to Sam. In any case, it is a mere copy of the Forbes source – it just lists the price range in dollars instead of pounds.
It is another yet another cryptocurrency blog with no editorial oversight, and it is a repeat of LES.
The remaining is the refbombing of artists' interviews & personal websites, which either mention the HOFA in passing or don't mention it at all:
This is HOFA's website, which isn't serving any purpose, and it obviously doesn't count towards notability.
  • Refs regarding the artist Zhuang Hong Yi:
This is an interview of the artist Zhuang Hong Yi about his solo show Radiance, which was hosted by HOFA. The interview is focusing on the work of the artist, although it does contains statements of both the artist & the HOFA's co-founder regarding their partnership. This interview might've been useful to add some info in the artist's WP article, but they don't have one. As far as HOFA is concerned, the only useful bit is that the artist worked for them. So this is a non-independent source, which doesn't count towards notability.
This is another interview of Zhuang regarding his aforementioned solo show Radiance. And this is the only mention of the gallery: “Radiance” runs until March 24 at the House of Fine Art (HOFA) gallery in London’s St. James district, before moving to a separate HOFA gallery in Mayfair from March 26 to April 8
Like the previous interview, it just proves that the artist worked for them.
  • Refs regarding the artist Ilhwa-Kims:
This short article is about a South Korean artist Ilhwa Kim's solo show Sensory Portrait, and the only thing it mentions about the gallery is: "Hosted by HOFA Gallery in London". In fact, that seems like the only time this artist got coverage, and obviously they don't have a WP article.
This interview is also about the artist's aforementioned solo show Sensory Portrait, and the only mention that HOFA gets is the following: The Sensory Portrait exhibition at HOFA in London runs until April 17th
  • Refs regarding the artist Marco Grassi:
This is the link of the artist's personal website, which doesn't even mention the HOFA. Why was it cited in the article?
This one lists his work, but there is no mention of the HOFA in it. Again, why was it cited in the article?
So, all in all, there is around 6-7 lines of semi-independent coverage, and it doesn't go beyond trivial mentions, thereby the subject is nowhere close to meeting the high standards of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG.
PS: Participants are free to comment on my analysis, although I won't be able to spend more time here today. So I will reply to the comments tomorrow. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC) added a ref which I missed earlier & made some other tweaks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, for whatever reason, participants are bringing the copies of the LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites after that news was originally published by LES on 7 August 2018. Please also note that they count as one source – see my comment above, esp. the quote from WP:N. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jytdog, after analysing the sources twice, I agree that LES is the only independent source. But even its focus lies on discussing the "bitcoin trend", and it is giving coverage to all the relevant galleries, thereby allotting just around four encyclopedic lines to the subject. So, even that source is nowhere close to being in-depth. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, an art gallery is a building. An organisation is a group of people. You cannot hang paintings on a group of people. You have to have walls. Therefore building. For this to be an organisation, you would in practice have to show that it refers to a group of people who own more than one art gallery. Otherwise "HOFA" is just a name for the building where the paintings are displayed. James500 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my. I see your confusion. OK, I fixed the content. It is clear from all the sources that HOFA is an art dealer. Art dealers need art galleries to show their wares; "art gallery" is frequently used as a shorthand to refer to the dealer -- to the business. Just oh my. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a gallery like the National Gallery or MOMA. It's a shop that sells artwork. Such shopkeepers call their shops "galleries" and themselves "dealers". Search for "58 Maddox St London W1S 1AY" to see a streetview of the doorway on a Mayfair street of shops including one other gallery. It seems to have been a dress shop when Google Streetview last went by. 92.19.30.162 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first, second, and third refs are low quality cryptocurrency blogs/trade rags, which we do not use. The last is a press release that duplicates a press release already used in the article as discussed on the talk page [[12]].. None of those are useful for N. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RS = RS. Even if you think they covered something that you personally find unimportant. Rzvas (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rzvas, please note that the first two sources provided by you are mere copies of the LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency-promoting blogs/sites after that news was originally published by LES on 7 August 2018. In fact, the third source provided by you mentions the HOFA & gives a link to the main article at the Read more label, and that main article is already analysed by me as Ref 7 above, which is again copy of the LES source. And the fourth source provided by you was already discussed in my above comment in the form of Ref 5. Please also note that they count as one source – see my analysis of the sources above, esp. the quote from WP:N. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC) added a bit which I missed earlier. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RS are indeed RS, and refs that are not RS are not RS. I have described why all four sources you brought are not RS for consideration of notability of an organization per WP:ORGCRIT - you should read that. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rzvas, I guess you can hear something salient, in Jytdog's analysis, shall you try enough.......∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article and avoided make a vote but after having seen a number of established editors able to find reliable sources for the establishing WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, I have no doubt now that the article should be absolutely kept. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I saw you mention over the ANI thread that you aimed for an auto-patrol flag, please be aware that we have a disdain for hat-collecting Wikipedia is not a MMORPG and that these type of creations won't lead to the flag.∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. www.theartcollector.org is a blog that offers Advertorial/promotional editorial as part of their opportunities for brand exposure, and is not remotely an independent, reliable source. milemag.com publishes press releases, Luxury London "positions premium brands in front of high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals through absorbing multi-channel content, revolutionary data profiling technology and tailored invitation-only events" in other words: neither independent nor reliable. The piece in Glass Magazine barely mentions the gallery, so does not provide significant coverage. Vexations (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are more than just three sources. Look at the history of the article. You won't see if it is possible anytime soon for others to add the content without engaging in edit warring with the same editors who are badgering this AfD. Excelse (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excelse, I've looked at the article's history, and chose the revision which contained all the sources that were ever cited there. And analysed them in detail. So you won't find any new source there. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Except the sources provided by users above, Standard.co.uk (London Evening Standard) also provides significant coverage per WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Fails NCORP. The sole claim to notability (which has got almost zero significant-traction outside the realm of crypto-blogs) is an-one-event-notability, at any case. Nitin's and Jytdog's reasoning has been excellent. And, I'm pretty amazed that multiple people seem to be blissfully unaware of ORGCRIT.∯WBGconverse 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jytdog and NitinMlk's excellent analyses of the promotional and unreliable sources in use. From what I can tell from what's left, the gallery has a claim of significance for apparently being the first art gallery to accept payments of cryptocurrency, however there do not appear to be any reliable publications noting this achievement, strongly suggesting that it is not one which would establish notability. And without notability, this business fails our inclusion guidelines. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Before even commenting here, I had already searched about the HOFA, and was unable to find any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. But I am someone who believes in discussion. So I posted my analysis of every source of the article in the hope of getting others' views. But rather than providing any new material for discussion or any policy-based arguments, they have just provided the copies of LES source, which appeared in multiple cryptocurrency promoting blogs/websites. These blogs/sites aren't even counted for notability, per WP:ORGCRIT. In any case, they add nothing new. Every thing else has already been explained in my analysis above. And I also note the thorough policy-based analysis of Jytdog. We can waste more time here, but that won't make any difference. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per James500 who laid out correct understanding of the subject. Subject warrants stand alone article because of the significant coverage in multiple sources the article shows. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sdmarathe James500 did nothing of the sort? WHERE is the significant coverage in multiple sources? Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The first is le Mile which is a press release, identical to the one also published by Luxe which had also been used as a ref. (really -- compare them. The same words.) It is not independent. The second is the evening Standard which is OK. There is one independent source that has substantial discussion of HOFA. One. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I am convinced by Jytdog and Nitin's analyses that the sourcing isn't sufficient. Reyk YO! 14:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost no in-depth coverage exists aside for brief mentioning in some garbage blogs. Really saddens me that some people consider all those obvious WP:UGC as "reliable sources"... The "Mile Magazine" source is just a brief PR. Only usable WP:RS with passable depth is an article from "The Standard", but that's it. All in all this is just a non-notable art dealer.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a majority of !voters are tending towards delete, there is a significant minority with policy-based arguments towards keep. Re-listing this discussion to gain clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count 11 keep votes, and the only policy based argument I see is that the subject meets WP:GNG which has been shown to be an erroneous reading of the sources. None of the sources (except one) do in fact satisfy the GNG. Vexations (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, there are 7 of them in total. Anyway, once the actual analysis of the sources started, there are 14 delete !votes. And as far as sources are concerned, everything was already discussed in detail before the relisting. In fact, all the keep !votes were already refuted by the policy-based arguments before the AfD was relisted. If somehow there was an iota of doubt left, then it was cleared by the subsequent delete !votes. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No real sources -- I mean, the Evening Standard story is not really about the gallery, it's about their accepting-bitcoin publicity stunt, and would be no more than a reliable source for THAT topic, not a mark of notability. And the less said about User:James500's frankly ridiculous "it's a building not a business" claim, the better, especially since it's not even a building by his logic, it's a tenant occupying PART of a building. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jytdog and NitinMlk's analyses of the sources, and also per Bonadea above. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not meet GNG, and the analysis by Jytdog and NitinMlk above of the sources is thorough and convincing. -- Begoon 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All of the above discussion is incapable of reaching a cogent decision on the evaluation of the contemporary art gallery under consideration. We might as well just leave it as "Keep" for the time being. I am not taking any position on whether it should be "kept" or not. My concern is with these unhinged discussions. And we might as well not destroy something because it could be a long time until someone recreates it—if it is notable. We are essentially reinventing the wheel in each of these deletion discussions pertaining to contemporary art galleries and we are doing an extremely poor job of reinventing that wheel. I would suggest that notability guidelines for contemporary art galleries are distant cousins of other notability guidelines. I think we should draw up notability guidelines particularly tailored to contemporary art galleries and then revisit this AfD. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've actually read the entire discussion above, then you would know that a consensus to delete has already been reached. And we aren't "reinventing the wheel"; rather, we are just following the standard notability policies & guidelines. I respect your interest in this area, but this isn't the place to 'tailor' notability guidelines. BTW, if you somehow end up tailoring the notability guidelines, then you can request for refund of the above article. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that we are "just following the standard notability policies & guidelines" which are exceptionally poorly suited to evaluating the notability of contemporary art galleries. But carry on. Don't let me stop us from deleting articles on contemporary art galleries willy-nilly. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "willy-nilly" was a bit harsh because I think you are trying in good faith to apply the existing policies to which you refer. Unfortunately contemporary art galleries—not necessarily this one—derive notability in part from the attention their exhibitions receive in reliably-sourced art reviews. While this at present is rejected as a manifestation of WP:INHERIT it should be one of the factors that contribute to notability for contemporary art galleries. We are in fact very concerned with reviews of exhibitions when we evaluate notability. Reviews focus 99% of the time on the artwork and the artist and not on the art gallery. But those reviews have the potential to support notability for the art gallery. Aside from reviews of art exhibitions there is relatively little that can be said about art galleries. Consequently in many cases—not necessarily this one—articles on art galleries are deleted when they easily meet notability requirements. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you added two sources in these diffs -- one was a Reuters video piece, and the other was a reproduction of the same Reuters video at WaPo website. This is one source, not two, and this is very typical reference padding. As you note, the video is about the artist and gives a passing mention to the gallery. Although you might wish it so, the one source does nothing to help add to the notability of the gallery. If you want to create some cutout in NCORP please feel free but that is very unlikely to gain consensus. (There are art dealers who do meet the NCORP criteria; this one is not.) Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Forbes sources was also discussed by me as Ref 1 in my above analysis. In fact, you've also discussed this particular source here earlier. I don't know why the users are adding the same sources which have already been discussed multiple times in this AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:timtempleton, Forbes contributor blogs are treated different from content by Forbes staff. They are specifically mentioned in WP:ORGCRIT, and have been discussed at RSN here and here. Perhaps OK for sourcing content as an RSOPINION, but not relevant to N. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, you don't have wp:inherited here. And another correction is in order—the notability of artists who exhibited at the gallery is irrelevant. In fact entirely unknown and un-notable artists would confer more notability on the gallery than prominent and decidedly notable artists—if there are published in reliable sources, reviews of art exhibitions of that artist's work, mounted in the gallery's space or under the auspices of the gallery but in other spaces. We are seeking an evaluation of notability for a gallery of contemporary art. Therefore we want to be mindful of what an art gallery specializing in contemporary art does—it discovers artists. This varies by degree but that element of discovery is what a contemporary art gallery does. A review of an art exhibition, especially of a relatively unknown artist, with little track record of success, has the potential to confer notability on the art gallery, to some degree. This WP:INHERIT charge grows out of a misunderstanding of what a gallery does. We see this time and time again (De Clercq, Maddox) in gallery after gallery with deletion being the result in cases of entirely notable art galleries of contemporary art. The inane argument is that "the notability of the shoes on sale in a shoe store do not confer notability on the shoe store." This is ass-backwards. Shoe stores don't discover shoes. Nike, Puma, or Brooks might discover shoes, but the shoe store in no sense discovers the shoes. More importantly no one ever argued that the notability of an artist, in the instance that the artist is notable, confers notability on the art gallery. So that would be a straw man argument. All that is called for is common sense and a little bit of familiarity with the sort of entity at the heart of an article for deletion, in this case a gallery of contemporary art. Countless artists want to be represented by an art gallery. An art gallery risks its money on the bet that they can spot the next artist whose work can be worth very high prices. This is the case whether the artist is entirely unknown or of only moderate success. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_House_of_Fine_Art&oldid=860714457"