Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robilant+Voena

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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. The trend in the discussion has been towards keeping, in line with improvements to the sourcing of the article (it now has fewer sources than at the time of the nomination for deletion, but that is mostly from a sweeping out of cruft). Note, however, that there is also not a consensus to keep; if the article is not further improved, it may be subject to another deletion effort in the future. One keep !voter has suggested that sources are to be found behind paywalls, but find the ones that are not. I also not that Andrea1861 has been particularly argumentative in pressing policy-invalid contentions, such as the inclusion of the subject in other Wikipedia articles. I would strongly suggest that they become more familiar with the actual operative policies of the project before arguing such points in the future. BD2412 T 05:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robilant+Voena

[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)

Promo piece on a non-notable business. Sources cited are mostly primary, and the few secondary ones offer only the briefest of passing mentions or not even that. Search only finds more of the same, plus some social media accounts, nothing that comes even close to RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page has enough notability as said by Nintendoswitchfan plus there are many other Wikipedia pages that cite Robilant+Voena as additional proofs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agostino_Bonalumi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_LaChapelle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_Strozzi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Caroselli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Ross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_d%27aria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_Collishaw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Frans_van_Lint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ena_Swansea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Veronesi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anh_Duong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Botti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Metcalf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Morgan_%28taxidermist%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanotype

Are these below also promo pieces?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Taylor_(gallery)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Coles_HQ

Is it correct the definition of art gallery? If yes, clearly Robilant+Voena can be included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_gallery Andrea1861 (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect:

Being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles confers no notability; that would be an entirely circular logic.
Notability, which is what an AfD essentially tests, is established purely by the sources, and in light of those this articles fails by some margin.
There may well be other articles out there that should also be deleted, but this AfD is here to discuss this particular article only. Also, please see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. So what is written on Wikipedia is not relevant, has no value in terms of notability?

2. I think that you can find notability if you review: books · news · scholar...

3. Wikipedia should be democratic and equal for all otherwise is a just an aimed aggression based on subjectivity.

Thank you. Andrea1861 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources that I couldn't, feel free to add them. One might wonder why you didn't do so during the 5+ months that this draft spent going through AfC, but of course better late than never. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be aggressive toward another Wikipedia member, I feel badly mocked by your comment as if you are trying to treat me as an incompetent. I have just asked a few reasonable questions.

Here a few new sources that clearly are not passing mentions:

https://news.artnet.com/market/mimmo-rotella-london-robilant-voena-278168

https://news.artnet.com/buyers-guide/armando-marrocco-robilant-voena-2148785

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/where-museums-go-shop-rare-works-art-180958529/

https://aestheticamagazine.com/review-of-mimmo-rotella-robilant-voena/

https://artdaily.cc/news/98360/Robilant-Voena-St--Moritz-presents-a-small-show-of-drawings-by-British-artist-David-Hockney#.YvZDXy8Rqu4

https://fadmagazine.com/2011/10/10/wim-delvoye-at-robilant-voena/

http://www.thephotophore.com/lucio-fontana-robilant-voena/

https://www.vogue.com/article/lapo-elkann-and-ahn-duong-show-at-robilant-voena-in-london

https://nordonart.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/tokyo-museum-acquires-important-manfredi-painting-from-robilant-voena/

https://www.artribune.com/arti-visive/2017/03/mostra-sergio-sarri-galleria-robilant-voena-milano/

https://myartguides.com/artspaces/galleries/milan/robilant-voena-milan/

https://www.artribune.com/report/2015/10/mostra-gianni-colombo-galleria-robilant-voena-londra/

https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/mimmo-rotella-at-robilant-voena-2015

https://www.corriere.it/cultura/16_giugno_10/paolo-manazza-arte-mostra-milano-robilant-voena-73a90718-2f3e-11e6-bb6d-75d636c22361.shtml

https://www.arte.go.it/event/tino-stefanoni-la-realta-la-magia/

https://artdaily.cc/news/147358/Exhibition-at-Robilant-Voena-explores-the-early-work-of-Armando-Marrocco#.YvZDvi8Rqu4

https://artslife.com/2016/11/18/leterna-bellezza-e-caravaggio-le-mostre-di-robilant-voena-tra-milano-e-londra/

http://www.arte.it/calendario-arte/milano/mostra-sergio-sarri-opere-1967-2017-35479

https://pietroconsagra.org/en/2018/10/01/pietro-consagra-frontal-city-1947-1967-robilant-voena-london/

https://www.youreporter.it/foto_milano_galleria_robilant_voena_catalogo_stefanoni/

https://www.infobae.com/america/cultura-america/2017/12/07/feria-art-basel-miami-beach-abrio-sus-puertas-traspasando-fronteras-del-arte/

Check also scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Robilant%2BVoena%22

Citations in books:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7q3b?turn_away=true&searchText=Robilant+Voena&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DRobilant%2BVoena%26so%3Drel%26efqs%3DeyJjdHkiOlsiWTJoaGNIUmxjZz09Il19&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A9e298ff14c06470bedf2b7eaf389e5e1

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Art_in_America/HEhUAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=%22Robilant%2BVoena%22%20-wikipedia

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Artemisia_Gentileschi_and_the_Authority/JSM1su0WJ6EC?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Eternal_Baroque/W1CEoAEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_of_Renaissance_Art/lyvCDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Alain_Elkann_Interviews/XX09tAEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Matta/-ojVsgEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Vogue_100/IrJrswEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Beyond_Caravaggio/yI0GkAEACAAJ?hl=en

https://www.google.it/books/edition/Rick_Owens_Furniture/XFNOEAAAQBAJ?hl=en

Thank you. Andrea1861 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked at the book links, but just to say that up to the Google Scholar link, there isn't a single source listed here that meets the GNG standard.

This is the second time you have accused me of aggression. Please leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to accuse you lightly but I felt badly treated by your comment; Additionally I just want to let you know that I have always tried to analyze and respect the guidelines other mentors have provided me with in regards to the several feedbacks I received for Robilant+Voena.

The rejections I received were always related to the low notability of Robilant+Voena; and the reason of this judgement was concerning the sources I have adopted to draft the page.

What I have tried to explain to the mentors who rejected the page - which has no background or experience of the global art market - is that commercial galleries are judged by the artworks they deal with and the exhibitions they organize. There are no galleries that have a full page article about the business itself: every mention is always related to a specific deal, discovery or exhibition. Considering that, Robilant+Voena has been mentioned in some of the most relevant magazines all over the globe (not only art/cultural magazines). Another topic that needs to be considered is the cultural and artistic contribution Robilant+Voena (or any other gallery) provides the society with: Robilant+Voena has madr, over the years, outstanding sales to some of the most important museums in the world (I suggest to you to look at their website). Don’t you think that this is important enough to be included in Wikipedia? I am sure that users who are interested in art would love to know more about this specific topic: how the National Gallery of London was able to purchase an Artemisia Gentileschi? Who sold the Principe Camillo Borghese by Gerome to the Frick Collection? This is pure knowledge, something that witness the cultural heritage of the Western world (at least). Finally: have you ever asked yourself why Colnaghi is the only commercial art gallery dealing in ancient art included in Wikipedia? There are a number of art dealers that have contributed to increase museums and private collections that are not even mentioned, people who have given to our society way more than public figures included in the Wikipedia database. I am sure that you will be able to appreciate the wonderful careers - and the works dealt by - of Carlo Orai, Samuel Dickinson, Maurizio Nobile, Coll & Cortes, etc.

I kindly ask you to try to understand that the criteria of judging the notability of a commercial art gallery is different than many business of public figures; have a look at the most significant media channel of the global art market, and look at tue top players that dominate it (where and how are they mentioned?).

I have been working on this page for almost one year, providing it with a number of significant references. It is quite frustrating that you keep saying these are not relevant just because it is something out of your area of expertise. Andrea1861 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deletion discussions about commercial galleries can be contentious. A commercial gallery is a business and most of the press surrounding a gallery is more about WHAT and WHO they are selling, rather than the history of the gallery. I don't see any references to Robilant+Voena's place in history, just references to what and where they have sold art. They aren't doing any ground-breaking work in discovering new art and they have only been around for 20 years. I think the article may be WP:TOOSOON. - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is needed for a commercial gallery that deals in the old masters sector to have its place in history? Discovering works of art as in 2018 by one of the few famous old master female painters as Artemisia Gentilsechi is not ground-breaking? Doing the first solo exhibition of Lucio Fontana in South Korea is not relevant? Producing English-language publications on 20th-century Italian artists, including Agostino Bonalumi (1935-2013), Paolo Scheggi (1940-71), Marino Marini (1901- 80), and Lucio Fontana (1899-1968). Publishing a series of monographs in Italian of little-known artists, including Carlo Dolci (1616-89), Cesare Dandini (1596-1657), Gregorio de Ferrari (c. 1647–1726), Marcantonio Franceschini (1649-1729) and the brothers Domenico (1668-1746) and Bartolomeo Guidobono edited by art historians such as Mina Gregori, Francesco Frangi, and Alessandro Morandotti. Andrea1861 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I went through all the references except for the New York Times reference behind a paywall. All the sources are passing mentions, basically saying certain painting/artwork is exhibited at gallery/sold through gallery/etc and proceeded to talk about said artwork. There is no WP:SIGCOV about the gallery. A few references have some writeups about the gallery but they are basically catalog of art galleries and does not pass SIGCOV. Even if the NYT article proved to have SIGCOV, the article would not have enough sources to pass WP:GNG.

For the new sources given, I went through the first 5 sources and they are all passing mentions, similar to original references. There are no direct links on the google scholar and books to mention the gallery, which make them not easy to assess. Notability is conferred by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, mentions by other wikipedia articles does not confer notability. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply above to DoubleGrazing I think the notion of commercial gallery is not clear to most people. Notions are important to talk and judge a topic especially when you are building an encyclopaedia. Thank you for understanding. Andrea1861 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain exactly why you want to delete this page? Thanks Andrea1861 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Others have arleady explained it, and i have nothing more to add. On an unrelated note, i'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:BLUDGEON. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant enough. These days galleries don't go on for generations (and most never did), & "they have only been around for 20 years" is no argument for deletion. Buying and selling is what galleries do, & those dealing in old masters don't have much opportunity to have a "place in history". Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So 'they have only been around for 20 years' is no argument for deletion, but "significant enough", without citing any guideline that would suggest galleries are somehow exempt from GNG, is an argument for keeping? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they are exempt from GNG? I'm saying that argument for deletion doesn't fly. In fact there will be plenty of sig cov behind the paywalls of the serious art trade press. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think an issue here is that the acquiring museums are grabbing all the coverage, but the acquisitions themselves have been highly press worthy and a transaction has two parties. (ps User:Ceoil here, logged out temporarily as using a public computer). 109.79.7.192 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am leaning keep but need to mull it over further. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, am not normally active on AFD, but voting to retain on three basis, which have attempted to emphasise on the now rewritten lead:

The number of significant old master exhibitions

The number of sales of major works to top 10 international museums (NG, MET, MOFA, etc)

As stated already, the way coverage of these things works, the selling gallery rarely gets more than passing mention, regardless of the volume of press coverage. As Johnbod alluded above, dealing in Old Masters is an unglamorous business (up and coming spaces dealing in contemporary art get pages and pages of breathless coverage), but in this case I think the company's achievements are significant.

Also have removed a large amount of puffery. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other things

their sale of Self-Portrait as Saint Catherine of Alexandria was covered by a number of UK daily newspapers, was described by Artnet, who would know, as "one of the most talked-about museum acquisitions of 2018" (note the emphasis on the acquisition rather than sale), and the wiki article was published a few weeks later.
Of the the Caravaggisti exhibition, the Telegraphs headline was "Beyond Caravaggio: Robilant + Voena's exhibition celebrates those inspired by the Italian master".
Both Robilant and Voena were well established in the market before their partnership.

Am a heartless delitionist, but don't think our generalist policy on companies quite works with old master galleries. Pinging WomenArtistUpdates to revisit, as they are informed and I normally respect their opinion, but voted delete above.

Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Ceoil. You certainly got rid of the extraneous stuff and it reads really well, and by well I mean neutral. I thought I had just commented and not !voted. An editor was just not getting why the page wound up here (and has indeed moved into bludgeoning). Galleries are a target for scrutiny. The article repeatedly failed AfC with no real changes made to the article except to keep piling on press releases. Getting the sale of the Artemisia Gentileschi into the lede and other clean-up does move me into keep territory. So now I want to sleep on it to figure out if I am prejudiced because of the elevation of Gentileschi into the lede :) Thanks again for the ping. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to talk again WomenArtistUpdates. Re bludgeoning have attempted here to prevent that happening again, as if the article is deleted, no doubt that wont be the last of it. As a side note, I'm finding the sources are mentioning the gallery in more detail when covering the exhibitions than the sales, linked to reasons given above. Thanks for replying so soon. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ps the Gentileschi has quite the storied provenance, which reinforces my keep even more, tbh. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article now has neutral point of view and demonstrates notability of gallery. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Johnbod and WomenArtistUpdates. Seems fine and a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (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.