Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamont Gallery

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. Clearly no consensus to delete here. Any discussion about redirection can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Gallery

Lamont Gallery (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 art gallery, as clearly stated in the article text has a minor collection. Not even a notable entity within the Academy Hyungjoo98 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's already mentioned in the parent. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy - not certain it's notable enough for a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not notable enough for a redirect. Most mentions of a Lamont Gallery point towards a gallery in London, a completely different entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any such gallery. alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Lamont gallery London. Although it is also not notable.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google Lamont Gallery by itself, it scarcely mentions the one in London.alphalfalfa^(talk) 10:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This gallery has been covered by local and statewide news such as seacoast online and NHPR, and also New Hampshire tour guides. Works exhibited or in its possession have been used in a multitude of other works. The gallery has hosted many significant artists, and holds the works of many significant articles in its collections. It passes WP:GNG. Also, small does not mean minor. Though not large, it contains significant paintings from known artists, like Diego Rivera. -alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the paintings are significant, and even if they were it would not establish the notability of this gallery. The Lamont Gallery could be easily explained with one or two sentences in the main Phillips Exeter Academy page Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the point of this museum. The main focus of the gallery is to exhibit rotating shows of visiting artists, exhibitions of which have been documented by news sites. The collection is secondary. Also, yes, the paintings are significant, and have toured around to several larger museums. See the new text I added. The significance of a museum is, unlike what you stated, directly derived from the exhibitions and collections. The gallery has significance by itself, not owed to the academy, unlike the dozens of articles you splintered off from the Hill that got deleted. alphalfalfa^(talk) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the articles of the Hill that were deleted (which took quite a bit of discussion and debate), this article is unanimously non-notable. There is no indication in the article or anywhere else that any of the paintings are significant (if they were, articles should be made for them first!) There are three references, two are from itself, one is a insignificant local tourist guide. Also, I urge you to not use personal attacks in the future WP:PA Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there was little to no debate on those articles. They were unanimously deleted. Secondly, a painting needs not to have an article to be important. It is by an important artist, and has been showcased a important museums. I must reiterate also that the importance of the collection is secondary. The most important thing about the gallery is its rotating exhibitions. I will add sources from newspapers about those exhibitions. I also have to point out that I am not personally attacking you, but merely clarifying a concept to you. I mean no offense, if any was perceived. alphalfalfa^(talk) 09:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The gallery's opening in 1953 was covered by The New York Times, which dealt with its naming, cost, and source of financing.^[1] That could form the kernel of a history section. The New Hampshire magazine piece cited in the article touches on restoration of the facility and temporary relocation to a new site. The gallery's hosting of traveling exhibitions by notable artists might be deemed run-of-the-mill for museums, but in articles about specific exhibitions, The Boston Globe and The Union Leader and have covered what sets it apart from other institutions - its permenant collection, exhibitions of works by faculty and staff, and the art collections of alumni.^[2][3][4]

The present article is short enough that it could be merged to Phillips Exeter Academy, but the topic has garnered sufficient attention from the world at large to meet WP:ORG independently. If all sources were mined thoroughly for content, the article could be expanded 3–5 fold, at which point it would no longer fit into the school. So keep and improve is the best option. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce I'm afraid I can't access the first article without a NYT subscription. alphalfalfa^(talk) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphalfalfa, contact WP:REFDESK. They can help. John from Idegon (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a NY Times subscriber, so I can get to the article. Technically, it is correct to say that it addresses its naming, cost, and source of financing, but that's making it out to sound a lot more than it really is. The entire article is three sentences, buried on page 63. And, given that it's credited to the AP wire service, it's a stretch to say the NYT covered the event. It's just filler. That hardly establishes WP:N. Here's a link to the article, but it's behind the paywall. Hopefully, somebody who has access to The Boston Globe can evaluate that article for us, but if it's not any better than the NYT article, I'd have to say we should delete this at not having sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Actually, thinking about this more, a redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy seems like an even better alternative then outright deletion. This is all based on the sources I can see now. If somebody can show that the Boston Globe article covers this in depth (or other good sources), I could be convinced to change my mind, but for the moment, I don't see how keeping this makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy per Rhododendrites - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's already mentioned in the parent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @RoySmith: I'm sorry the paragraph in The New York Times was disappointing, I didn't intend my description of it to be disingenuous. "Covered" does make it sound like they sent someone there, a better choice of word might have been reported or printed. I was trying to make two points with the NYT. First, the gallery has been noticed outside New Hampshire, so the organization doesn't fail WP:AUD, which wasn't obvious from the sources already cited. Second, the NYT could be the starting point for a history section, something currently missing from the article. I did not mean to imply that the NYT alone established the gallery's notability. WP:ORGDEPTH tells us to use multiple sources when depth of coverage is not substantial, and the NYT could be one of those sources.

If you email me, I can reply with some of the sources, including the The Boston Globe, attached. It's about celebrations throughout the school, with only a small portion about the gallery. The most directly relevant quote is "... began Friday with the opening of an exhibition of tribal art at the Lamont Gallery at the academy. The primitive art collection of the late Michael Clarke Rockefeller (class of 1956) is on loan from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art." An editor might also be able to make something of what it says later about Principal Lewis Perry, who undertook the academy's largest building program, and under whose leadership the gallery was built. The source is useful as a concrete example of something that several sources talk about - where the gallery's exhibits come from. They rent traveling exhibits, like many galleries, but one of the things that sets them apart from other galleries is that they have billionaire alumni with art collections that can be borrowed from places like The Met. The Boston Globe is another source that could be combined with others to establish notability.

A bit of searching turned up nine more independent, reliable sources. The longest (882 words) is an AP piece. It contains a bit about the location of the gallery and its rooms, and quite a bit about the new gallery director and curating for the gallery. It says exhibitions are often chosen to tie in with classes being taught at the academy, and gives a specific example.^[5] Four more sources address the planning and construction of the gallery. I don't have access to the full text, but from what I've been able to glean, they discuss all the things one would expect in a major construction project - planning bodies, dates, architects, cost overruns, etc.^[6][7][8][9] Another source I haven't read because it isn't free seems, based on its abstract, to strengthen the gallery's claim to notability as a tourist attraction.^[10] The final three sources are short ones. Two discuss arrivals or departures of directors.^[11][12] Articles about museums often include something about the directors/curators, either in a management section or woven into the history section. At least one director, Cabot Lyford, is notable. The third short source is another article from The Boston Globe. I'm not sure I'd use it if I were writing the article, but it talks briefly about an academic committee formed to censor a gallery exhibition the academy was concerned might not be wholly appropriate under the circumstances.^[13]. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article as written does not adequately indicate the notability of its subject... but the sources Worldbruce found do, and that's the standard that needs to be met. While this one is a close call, I think the sources available demonstrate sufficient notability. It would be good if someone could rewrite the article to better demonstrate that. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:36, 20 August 2017 (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.