Talk:Charles Cowles (art dealer)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Charles Cowles Gallery is being questioned for "notability", which is patently absurd. Cowles founded & was publisher of Artforum Magazine & has been a major force in the artworld for more years than I can count. You really need to get some editors that actually know something about the artworld, to make decisions about these articles.Fvlcrvm (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry?

Why do we need a long WP:LAUNDRY list of artist names in this article, cited only to a website which is (a) his own and (b) domain-parked/for sale? What happened to our usual practice of basing our articles on independent reliable sources? I don't know if this person is notable by our standards or not, but the page as it stands is doing little or nothing to demonstrate that he is. Ping Modernist, Lopifalko, who have both edited here recently. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the red links can go and the article can use some better sources; I will try to add and improve the article...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: You're doing the same thing elsewhere that you did with this article, undoing my work of removing laundry lists that lack WP:RS and are issues of WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, with this edit. I cited all of the above policy and you said "thats your opinion!". -Lopifalko (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History and historical fact need sources and references, not removal. Ask for sources and improvements before blanket removals. Clean laundry not no laundry..Modernist (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, Modernist, removal of challenged and unsourced material is perfectly acceptable; there's nothing to stop other editors from then restoring it with appropriate sourcing, but the WP:BURDEN is on them to support the claims made. Wikipedia is unfortunately overloaded with unsourced material left over from the past, and I don't think any of us should be either adding to that or preventing it from being cleared up.

A different question is whether we need such a laundry list at all. My take on that is that if independent reliable sources have found it worthy of note, then we should too; but if all we have to go on is the gallery's own promotional materials, then we're better off without. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that challenged and unsourced material can be removed; challenged first, and then removed; and can also be restored with appropriate sourcing. In many cases independent and reliable sources are the best justification for any of these many gallery lists; however those lists in many cases do represent recent or relatively recent art history especially in the somewhat esoteric subject of contemporary art. The issue for me regarding some of these lists is if they actually do represent recent or relatively recent history then they tell an important story and if challenged then it behooves us as editors to attempt to source those articles and accompanied lists. I think it is always worth a try....Modernist (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When there are long lists of numerous artists without any additional information at all describing the context of the relationship between dealer and artist, or in what ways one's relationship to the other is important to either of them or to art history in general, then it seems to me that all too often the art dealer / art dealer article is seeking notability through association with the artists whose work they have had in their shop. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: You have added the red linked Joanna Pousette-Dart with a source of static1.squarespace.com. I think only artists with articles be in such lists (if at all). A Squarespace site raises suspicion to begin with. Also, I have not clicked on the link but presumably with a filename like "Joanna+Pousette-Dart-CV-6-24-19.pdf" it is Pousette-Dart's own CV. Not only is this not an independent reliable source describing the artist as being related to the dealer, but it is a primary source. This is not the quality sourcing I would expect to see. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left her in the article; knowing how well known an artist that she is [1], [2]...however I will remove her...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]