Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxy Production

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Production

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

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

Article for a gallery that shows a lot of notable artists. The gallery itself is not notable though, as SIGCOV does not exist and WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article's gallery is mentioned in a number of articles in Bloomberg News, specifically [1] and [2]. It's publications also have reviews in the New York Times [3], and the gallery was the subject of a New Art Dealers Alliance interview with the founder about the importance of galleries [4]. The article in question should definitely be cleaned up to meet the standards of other Wikipedia articles, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim the subject as non-notable. Userqio (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You give four sources. The first two total five sentences. The last is an interview, which is not really an independent source. I included the New York times article on Sascha Braunig in the article on her, because I just created it! But it is about Braunig and not the gallery. (Researching Braunig, who is very notable, was how I found Foxy Productions). So really there is no SIGCOV here to establish notability. Happy to be persuaded otherwise.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 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. If I had an idea of what page to merge to, I would suggest a merge. But since I don't I'm not entirely sure. If we were to treat the gallery like a person, it might pass WP:ARTIST through the combination of all of the work that it's helped publish. But using that rhetoric almost seems like WP:ORGSIG, so unless someone else wants to comment on this I'll be striking my !vote out. Userqio (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed numerous times at Afd, and it comes down to the fact that the notability guidelines are not set up for this kind of organization. The be notable you have to have detailed SIGCOV, and very few galleries except for the very large and famous ones have that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet our revised WP:NCORP guideline (and probably didn't meet the old one either). The Australian "Broadsheet" article does have some in-depth coverage, but – surprise, surprise! – is a "dispatch" supplied by "John Thomson of Foxy Production". As discussed in innumerable past deletion nominations, the notability of the product or merchandise (here, works by various artists) is not "inherited" by the trader or merchant. As for the notability of the artists, several of those listed are blue-linked because User:Artentries created pages for them, without any adequate sourcing, but rigorously complete with "(S)he is represented by Foxy Production in New York". I have prodded Jimmy Baker (American artist), Simone Gilges, Ester Partegàs, Michael Bell-Smith and Violet Hopkins as non-notable COI creations, am still looking at Hany Armanious and Olga Chernysheva Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Justlettersandnumbers: I removed the PROD from all of these articles; None of these are uncontroversial, thus a PROD is incorrect. I also reverted your redirects on Jessica Ciocci and Jacob Ciocci. If you want to bring them here to AFD you are welcome to.--Theredproject (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hold final closing decision until the conversation I have started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Current_interpretations_of_WP:NCORP_fail_to_adequately_evaluate_Art_Galleries is completed. I discuss my larger problem with this narrow interpretation of WP:NCORP & WP:NOTINHERITED there. In this specific case, I think we need to take into account the sheer volume of exhibition reviews, and other coverage. An NYT search returns 57 results. --Theredproject (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with WP:NOTINHERITED, but there are enough articles about the gallery itself [5] [6] [7] et cetera. Passes WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only reason an article like this would be deleted is due to a problem with notability guidelines for galleries of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:12, 23 April 2019 (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.