Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Friedmann-Hahn

: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. Despite the length of the discussion, the consensus was pretty clear that the sourcing does not indicate that the subject should be kept in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Alexander Friedmann-Hahn]]=

:{{la|Alexander Friedmann-Hahn}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Friedmann-Hahn Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Alexander Friedmann-Hahn}})

Not notable as an artist (no exhibtions, except one group show at his own gallery). As a gallerist there is no significant , in-depth coverage except some mentions in reviews or announcements of shows by artists he represents. Creator has obvious read our notability guide for artists, WP:NARTIST, as they explicitly mention "significant body of work, being the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews, such as" in the article, but then fail to substantiate that claim. And then again with "widely cited by peers and periodical articles". The article was obviously translated from German. As a business, the article falls far short of WP:NCORP, except for one interview with the subject, not media have covered the business as such. There was a German article, that has been proposed for deletion twice. It was kept once [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/8._Dezember_2017#Alexander_Friedmann-Hahn_(LAE)] but ultimately deleted [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/8._Januar_2018#Alexander_Friedmann-Hahn_(gel%C3%B6scht)] as having "keine erkennbare Relevanz" (no discernible relevance) which is another way of saying the subject is not notable. Mduvekot (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)]

To make it easier to see where the problems with the sources are I'm including a table below that shows if the source is relevant, significant, reliable, independent and secondary. Relevant in this context means that the source actually says what the article claims and is about the subject, Significant means that coverage is in-depth, reliable and independent refer to WP:RS and WP:IS and secondary means that the source is not by the subject or an associate.

class="wikitable"

|+

!

!relevant?

!significant?

!independent?

!reliable?

!secondary?

!notes

1 Chapeau

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|An interview in a magazine that is not known for fact checking.

2 Berliner Zeiting

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|BZ these days is a usually reliable source, but this is about paintings in their own offices. The article is from 1994 when the BZ was a tabloid.

3 Die Welt

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|This isn't independent reporting, this is a project by the source.

4 Die Welt

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|Aims to supports the claim that F-H uses impasto (pastose brushstrokes != flottem Pinselstrich) No byline, absurd speculation that Frederick the Great might have commissioned work from F-H

5 Summary of other sources (already listed)

|

|

|

|

|

|n/a

6 Gallerie F-H

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|The galley about itself. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't.

7 kunstverein-uelzen.org

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|A press release from the The Kunstverein Uelzen e. V. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't.

8 Gallerie F-H

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|Published by the Gallery, not about the subject

9 Die Zeit

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|Not about the subject, but confirms he is a contributor to Die Zeit.

10 ArtCircle

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|Not about the subject, also unnecessary, already supported by footnote 8

11 artgenossen-berlin.de

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|press release from a PR agency

12 Muenchen.de

|

|

|

|

|

|

13 Queer.de

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|Quote from subject descibres Lear's style as ""Neo-expressiv"

14 Die Welt

|{{Aye}}

|maybe

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|Has a paragraph about the gallery. Describes where it is, that he exhibits work by his friends, that his wife operates an establishment in the Hackescher Markt and that they have a newborn together. 250 guests showed up for an opening, a painting costs about EUR 7000 and he sold 7 of them. A brief announcement of his next shows.

15 Kunstforum

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|No mention of the subjectMention as one of a list of participants (Teilnehmerliste) in a weekend of openings. (updated) Vexations (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

16 artnet

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|List item

17 Der Tagesspiegel

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|Mention of the gallery as a venue

18 n-tv

|{{Nay}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|Interview with Mia Florentine Weiss, one mention of the gallery

19 SZ

|{{Aye}}

|{{Nay}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|{{Aye}}

|Mention of the gallery as a venue

Mduvekot (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 02:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, after a bit of a reserach (and article reading), I think we scould agree on Keep because your claims aren't exactly what they claim to be, I feel like many sources I used in the article remain ignored in your statements above. Regarding the first statement, that his only exhibition he had was in his own gallery, it happens to be incorrect. As given in the text, he was shown in solo shows in the [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_Commeter Galerie Commeter] (which is the oldest gallery in Hamburg, founded in 1812, and one of the oldest and renowned gallery in Germany) and in several publishing houses, such as the editing house of Berliner Zeitung, which got press coverage (it is not a simple invitation, as falsely marked by you in the quote, it is an article published [http://www.paintingsforyou.de/pics/press2.html phisically in a newspaper]). Further you point out that, I am reluctant to substantiate the claim that, he as an artist, is the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews, which are needed to meet the criteria for notability. I provided in the quotations in-depth coverage of articles dealing primarily with his art/work as an artist, published by Die Welt, Welt am Sonntag and Berliner Zeitung. Those newspaper articles are available on his artist website, which is different to his gallery website and not really in use anymore. They have been uploaded as flash and don't posses a url (except the article of the Berliner Zeitung linked above), reason why I couldn't link them to Wikipedia properly. You may acces the in-depth articles on his art [http://www.paintingsforyou.de/ here], but need to click on press (Presse) button and leaf through. I understand, it's hard to you to decide on the notability as Alexander Friedmann-Hahn came out as an artist in the pre internet era and most sources are written in German and not easily available on the www, but he clearly meets the criteria stated by Wikipedia for creative professionals. If you need further help in translating or have doubts on some quotations/sources, feel free to ask, I am happy to help! All my best (P.S. The reason why he has been deleted in the German Wikipedia is, that the criteria for creative professionals, they have a diffrent one for artists, is slightly stricter then the US one and AFH was on the edge of being kept or deleted. The same article, as you stated correctly, has been one kept and then deleted on the same grounds) --Klabumm (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep this is looks like a sources in other languages issue. Klabumm has a lot of credibility on the issue of art notability, and I accept what he says above entirely. All in all, notability established. Checking the "press link" provided above does lead to numerous RS, although the selection was a bit polluted with vanispam type articles. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

:: Not really. I'm fluent in German. Mduvekot (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

:::In that case, I will add the comment that I could be entirely wrong.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment {{user|Mduvekot}} has made a really clear analysis here, and it is meaningful that none of these sources have all five green checks! I'm not a German reader, so my vote would be solely an endorsement of Mduvekot's argument based on what is presented above. I trust Mduvekot. Theredproject (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

::yes I agree-- my initial take was incorrect. I just trimmed large amounts of text that were just puffery.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. I read the German afd and the article here, I didn't check the refs because they are in German. If it isn't good enough for the German wiki I'm not sure why it would be good enough for here, it was deleted last December after what appears a lengthy discussion. My vote is probably full of holes, but this isn't a typical afd and it is the best I can do. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

::@{{user|Szzuk}}: It has been deleted because the criterica for notability in the German Wikipedia are diffrent to the criteria in the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia requires reviews/periodicals with prmary subject on the artist, whereas the German Wikipedia requires them to be published in the cultural part of the newspaper, they are slightly stricter. Regarding my sources. I was able to dig some more out and will incoprporate them today or tomorrow. User Mduvekot is citing quite selectively in his table and ignoring some peridocals which are available on the internet, partly due to the fact that I did not mention them in my sources, partly I assume he hasn't read them properly. I will write on this issue later, after having included further newspaper in the article not being mentioned in the table.--Klabumm (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

::: {{u|Klabumm}} You say I ignored {{tq|some periodicals which are available on the internet, partly due to the fact that I did not mention them in my sources, partly I assume he hasn't read them properly}}. Of course I ignored publications you didn't cite. I am not going to analyze sources that are not used in the article. If you meant to imply that I didn't do WP:BEFORE, that's not true, and I think it is well established that I am a vocal proponent of BEFORE even when not strictly necessary. If I overlooked a high-quality secondary source then please just use it to improve the article. Vexations (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's reasoning, as supported by exemplary work (and presentation). I went through the material, and I'm impressed by both Klabumm and Mduvekot. Yes, the Germans might be different from the rest of us but they cannot be too different. :-) The subject, in terms of the English-language edition's rules, does not achieve credible, independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • :I am still working on my sources, I think I will post hem later today.--Klabumm (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for the following reasonsHope we can work this out, in a way it comforts both of us and Wikipedia. I agree, I could have used better sources and I further agree that there are some in which the gallery is mentioned only as a venue or participant at a fair, some other articles, here I disagree with you, are revieviewing in depth the exhibitions he had organized for his artists in his gallery and of course he is mentioned then as a venue! Again, for the purpose of clarification, his venue is mentioned because the exhibition held in his gallery is discussed in depth in the article. I enclosed a list, adding further reviews, having as primary subject the exhibitions he has organized for his artists in his gallery and dealing in depth with the work exhibited:

:* Der Tagesspiegel: 5 reviews, [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/galerie-friedmann-hahn-anne-leone-und-daniel-ludwig-zeigen-neue-werke/14696892.html here], [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/extremsport-in-berlin-schnelle-schaben-ausgestopfte-hunde/7415946.html here], [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/fast-fotorealistisch-malerei-von-edite-grinberga-mein-liebstes-neglige/6309780.html here], [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/an-der-bar/4201742.html here] and [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/stadtleben/zeit-gewinn-der-papst-der-pafft/1715354.html here] ),

:* Die Welt: three reviews [https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article113935393/Wie-aus-Andrea-Sawatzki-die-britische-Queen-wird.html here], [https://www.galeriefriedmann-hahn.com/images/wwwNewsFull/130221_DWeltKompakt_Fischnaller-(B0360EC0-D6B7-1004-925D-871061331441).jpg here] and [https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article88930/Friedmann-Hahn-zeigt-Werke-von-Pavel-Feinstein.html here]. (Regarding the last one, I go in line with you: It is a article having Alexander Friedmann Hahn and his exhibition of one his gallery artisis as primary subject but deals a lot about miscellania, e.g. how much he has sold, when his daughter was born. No clear line was drawn between him as an artist, family news and exhibition review of his gallery artist, but it is still a periodical article dealing on him as a subject, it is ambigous),

:* Berliner Zeitung (8 reviews [http://www.markusfraeger.de/berliner_zeitung.pdf here] and [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/der-new-yorker-maler-und-zeichner-donald-vaccino-laesst-sich-ungern-eingrenzen-das-eine-naehrt-das-andere-15082520 here] , [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/die-disko-koenigin-der-siebziger-jahre-zeigt-erstmals-ihre-gemaelde-in-berlin-amanda-lear-als-malerin-15690630 here], [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/caroline-weihrauchs-leidenschaftliche-bilder-mittagsglut-der-farben-15501464 here], [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/die-boesen-und-die-haesslichen--aber-bitte-haarfein--guido-sieber-ergoetzt-sich-am-verbrechen-gangsterballaden-15837684 here], [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/guido-sieber-malt-berliner--milljoehs--von-heute-und-haelt-ein-zwiegespraech-mit-zille-stadtgestalten-nicht-schoen--aber-selten-14987726 here], [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/der-oesterreicher-josef-fischnaller-und-der-norweger-anders-gjennestad-in-der-galerie-friedmann-hahn-ist-schon-so-lange-her-15078730 here], [https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/fabel-oder-gleichnis--der-maler-pavel-feinstein-in-der-galerie-friedmann-hahn-stillleben-auf-dem-affen-planeten-14976180 here]

:* Berliner Morgenpost: three reviews [https://www.galeriefriedmann-hahn.com/de/news/alte_meister_bekannte_gesichter here], [https://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/leute/article104447307/Berliner-Milljoeh-Vernissage-mit-Zille-und-Sieber.html?keepUrlContext=true here], and [https://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/leute/article104630601/Friedmann-Hahn-zeigt-Werke-von-Pavel-Feinstein.html here]

:* Süddeutsche Zeitung: one review [http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/fotografie-von-josef-fischnaller-witz-und-wahn-1.2524652 here]

:* B.Z.: two reviews [https://www.bz-berlin.de/kultur/kunst/die-ausstellung-bei-der-die-fotos-gemalt-sind here], and [https://www.bz-berlin.de/kultur/hier-haengt-der-sommer-ab here]

:In some cases, you can tell it even by the title that those reviews are are reviewing the exhibitions in his gallery, no need of profound reading knowledge in German is required!!

:Amongst the sources above, you failed quoting in the table the following sources, dealing in depth on AFH as an artist.

:* Die Welt: Looss, Annekatrin: Ölkreiden in Havanna-Schachteln. Maler Alexander Friedmann-Hahn hat einfach Stil – Nicht nur bei einen Bildern, published on May 19th, 2000, available on his homepage and [https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article514634/Oelkreiden-in-Havanna-Schachteln.html here] (not quoted by you in your table, even though I have mentioned it in the footnotes)

:* He was primary subject of a documentary/television report, aired on Hessischer Rundfunk. The video lasts about 3 minutes and is avilable on his artist site [http://www.paintingsforyou.de/ here]. Hessischer Rundfunk is the tv host of the state of Hessen, mainly dealing with subjects from Hessen, but is broadcasted nationwide through Germany, e.g. I am from Northern Germany and can receive Hessischer Rundfunk as the media policy in Germany is federal. Just press the "Presse" button and go through the many reviews till the end, you will find it there (didn't work on my old Mac but worked with Windows) (not quoted by you in your table, though you have admitted you went through the press page, I quoted above. I admit, I havn't added the documentary to his article, nonetheless a quick search would have had uncovered it. As you replied above to {{u|104.163.147.121}} you went through the press material. Now I am wondering why you neglect it and still deny the articles in your response to {{u|104.163.147.121}}

:Further I would like to clarify some points and express my doubts on your due process.

:You falsely stated two times (Kunstforum International and queer.com), that both sources aren't bringing up a quote on the subject, which can be easily disproved. Just hold String+F, type in Friedmann-Hahn, et voila, you'll be directed to the part of the page where the gallery has been mentioned in text. I am with you, those are only mentions, not in-depth coverage and not hard criterica when it comes to establish notability.

:Resuming, we got 22 (!) independant articles/reviews having as primary subject the exhibitions organized in his gallery and reviewing them in depth. Further we got one short tv doumentary/broadcast (call it however you wish) and further a long article in Die Welt, having a as primary subject him as an artist as well, additionaly to those mentioned in your table.

:Those 22 new reviews, reviewing his gallery exhibitions and three article/tv documentary on him as an artist perfectly meet the criteria according the criteria for notability for creative professionals, which requires multiple independent reviews/periodicals. At the end, notability is not established whether you agree with his art critics (No byline, absurd speculation that Frederick the Great might have commissioned work from F-H...a bit biased your statement, don't you think?), but determined according the sources provided, which are, without any doubt, given. The fact, that you are making false claims (accusing me of quoting sources without the content being mentioned in the source), that you are falsely stating, you did research before and missed those 22 reviews plus the tv documentary plus the new article in Die Welt, which are avilable on the internet (I even instructed you how to get there), is quite disappointing in my eyes! I am sure, it wasn't your intention to distort facts, but in the end it is all about credability as users {{u|Theredproject}}, {{u|Szzuk }}, {{u|The Gnome}} can't read German and they rely on what we present to them. They make their decision because they trust us to present facts, written in foreign languages, properly.--Klabumm (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

::I will provide a point-by-point rebuttal later (and fix the indentation above). For now, regarding {{tq|You falsely stated two times (Kunstforum International and queer.com), that both sources aren't bringing up a quote on the subject,}} I have fixed the note on Kunstforum in the table above. There is indeed a mention of the gallery. It doesn't really make a difference. I do not see queer.com as a source. If you are referring to queer.de, I don't think I "falsely stated" that it didn't bring up a quote on the subject. Furthermore, please refrain from casting aspersions, or anything that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack. Vexations (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Klabumm}} Below, as promised above, a point-by-point rebuttal. I'm creating this as a subsection to comply with WP:TPG.

{{tq|a list, adding further reviews, having as primary subject the exhibitions he has organized for his artists in his gallery}} The subject of the article under discussion is Alexander Friedmann-Hahn, the person. Citing a review of an exhibition may be appropriate for an article about the exhibiting artist, but it does absolutely nothing to establish the notability of the gallerist. Notability is not inherited, it is conferred by significant coverage of the subject, not coverage of an artist represented by a business owned by the subject.

I am unimpressed by your list of 22 exhibition reviews. If you can find any significant coverage of the subject (the person) in any of those sources let us know what is is and where. Just say what exactly you're going to use them for, or even better, just rewrite the article and cite them. Bombarding participants with a long list of irrelevant stuff they ought to read before they can form an opinion on the notability of the subject is not helpful and borderline disruptive. It goes against the spirit of How to contribute to an AfD.

{{tq|you failed quoting in the table the following sources, dealing in depth on AFH as an artist}} I didn't list it because of the way it was cited. There's a link to the Wikipedia article about Die Welt, but the citation doe not have a link that other participants here can follow. I did analyse the sources that were already cited elsewhere. The format you use is something that German Wikipedia uses where several sources are combined. We tend to not do that, and instead cite each source individually. So your footnote (currently #5) would be split into {{cite news|last1=Looss|first1=Annekatrin|title=Ölkreiden in Havanna-Schachteln. Maler Alexander Friedmann-Hahn hat einfach Stil – Nicht nur bei einen Bildern|work=Die Welt|date=19 May 2000}}

{{cite news|title=Neuer Versuch, neues Genre: Sanssouci gemalt|URL=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9Xtgx9G-6BQJ:www.welt.de/print-welt/article510698/Neuer-Versuch-neues-Genre-Sanssouci-gemalt.html|work=Die Welt|date=6 April 2001|pages=46}}

{{cite news|title=Ausstellung in heimeliger Atmosphäre|work=Die Welt|date=17 December 2001}}

{{cite news|title=Engel & Völkers zeigt Potsdam-Motive des Malers Alexander Friedmann-Hahn|work=Welt am Sonntag|date=14 May 1995}}

{{cite news|last1=Ruthe|first1=Ingeborg|title=Positiv denken! Foyer-Schau mit Alexander Friedmann-Hahn|URL=https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/foyer-schau-mit-alexander-friedmann-hahn-positiv-denken--17154258|work=Berliner Zeitung|date=12 April 1994}}

{{talkref}}

The problem with this footnote is that you assert something that appears designed to thwart this discussion. This one of the reasons I think you may have a conflict of interest. In stead of summarizing what the sources say (which is what we do as editors of Wikipedia) you merely state THAT the subject has received coverage, but you do not say WHAT those sources say.

So you suggest that I have failed in my efforts somehow because I did not analyze a source that you did not use to say anything meaningful and that is difficult to access quickly. Well once you use it to cite something meaningful, I might make the effort. "being the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews" doesn't belong in an article.

{{tq|I havn't added the documentary to his article, nonetheless a quick search would have had uncovered it}} I'm not going to review every google result. Please point to a policy page that says that I am required to review every potential source I might find on line that is NOT used in an article. I find it mildly amusing that you posted on April 6 {{tq|I am still working on my sources, I think I will post hem later today}} and then didn't post them until April 8, but see it fit to scold me for not uncovering such sources in my review.

{{tq|You falsely stated two times (Kunstforum International and queer.com)}} I make no such false claim. The subject is the person, not the gallery and the person is not mentioned in the Kunstforum cite, the gallery is. I could have made that clearer, and edited my note earlier today to reflect that.

For the record: I categorically deny that I have deliberately misrepresented anything known to me to be true in this AfD. Any assertion to the contrary is scandalous and not befitting a Wikipedia editor. Vexations (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

::Comment I believe that the following passage in Vexations's text is the crux of the ongoing dispute, at least as far as I'm concerned: {{tq|The subject of the article under discussion is Alexander Friedmann-Hahn, the person. Citing a review of an exhibition may be appropriate for an article about the exhibiting artist, but it does absolutely nothing to establish the notability of the gallerist. Notability is not inherited, it is conferred by significant coverage of the subject, not coverage of an artist represented by a business owned by the subject.}} So, at the end of the day, we need, as we usually do, sources establishing independent notability. Do we have them or not? -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep There are two possible bases for notability: as an artist, and as a gallerist. There seems to be some very weak notability as an artist. We have no workable standards for gallerists. It is not just a business in the ordinary sense, but one of the auxiliary professions that facilitate the fine arts. Considering their significance in that professional network, I think we should be very liberal here; I would say the same about similar auxiliary professions in other fields, such as music and science. It's the nature of such professions to be overshadowed by the artists etc. they serve, and I've always thought we should interpret the GNG standards in line with the nature of available sources in the field. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

:I also want to comment on the table above. It is constructed in such a way as to make 'relative - significant - independent -reliable - secondary each a binary choice. I do not think sources work that way. Sources are of relative degrees of relevance, significance, independence, reliability and secondary nature. To take a set of binary choices and then apply them across the array of sources gives a mistaken degree of precision, in the hunt for 2 or 3 sources that fulfill all 5. Looking at the rationales given, I could construct a rationale for disagreeing in detail with at least one of the binary choices for many of them. (depending on whether I though on the true basis, of global suitability for an encyclopedia. We could just as easily use them as complementary factors, or average them.

:I recognize the attempt to rationalize the way of dealing with this, but it falls into a common fallacy: an elaborate table of values can give a spurious impression of precision. It tends to induce one to forget that the individual items of data are far from precise. It's 's similar to an equally spurious technique, the piling-on of as many possible references regardless of their importance. We've learned to be wary of that--it's too susceptible to use for promotional articles. We should be wary of this also--it's too susceptible to a destructive analysis. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd also like to expand on DGG's comment a bit: while the table goes through the sources in the article, the table also assumes that they are the only sources. A before search brings up a number of sources, not notable and possibly otherwise. I think there's something a bit tricky about this article: I think it would pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG if it were about the gallery itself, even though the gallery is eponymous, but I would vote delete on the grounds I do not think the gallerist is notable. I vote move to Galerie Friedmann-Hahn and include a short blurb on the creator. SportingFlyer talk 06:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. He does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ARTIST; in particular, his work has (apparently) not been a significant part of a major exhibition, nor is it (apparently) included in important institutional collections. If there is a "significant body of work", where was it shown, where is it now exhibited? Nor, as far as I can see, does he meet WP:BASIC; there is is a certain amount of fairly trivial reportage, but not the sort of comprehensive in-depth coverage in diverse independent reliable sources that would allow us to write a proper article about him.

:On the suggestion by {{u|SportingFlyer}}: it is quite difficult for an art gallery to meet WP:NCORP, as coverage is almost always of the works exhibited or sold, and/or of the artists who created them; this one does not come close. This would have true even before the recent upgrade of NCORP to clearer and more stringent requirements, and is all the more so after it. It could reasonably be added to a List of art galleries in Germany, if we had one.

:I'm concerned to find that a good deal of what is claimed in the article is not in fact supported by the references cited; I've removed some of that unsourced content, but it seems that there may still be more.

:If the article was translated as is suggested above, where was it translated from and where is the attribution of the source? {{u|Klabumm}}, can you clarify? Could you also kindly remove any links to newspaper clippings hosted on his website, per WP:LINKVIO? Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

::{{u|Justlettersandnumbers}} You stated, that it is quite difficult for an art gallery to meet WP:NCORP, as coverage is almost always of the works exhibited or sold, and/or of the artists who created them; this one does not come close.. This is not true. We have 22 in depth articles/reviews having as primary subject the exhibitions held in his gallery, in other words the gallery exhibitions have been reviewed quite often. Those reviews aren't included in the article on AFH for now and have not been included in Vexations table above, but I posted a list earlier in this discussion, just beneath the first Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.--Klabumm (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

:::Struck out double vote. -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

::: Well, in that case, if you want to imply that notability is inherited from the artists that a gallery represents (and this gets you in trouble with WP:INHERITORG), let's have a look at those artists: Josef Fischnaller, Giovanni Castell, Thomas Kaemmerer, Markus Fräger, Edite Grinberga, Anders Gjennestad, Sasa Makarová, Daniel Ludwig (artist), David FeBland, Christian Grosskopf, Anne Leone, Laura Nieto, olf Ohst, Mirko Schallenberg, Guido Sieber, Marc Sparfel, Marc Taschowsky, Donald Vaccino, Maximilian Verhas, Mia Florentine Weiss. Note that that David FeBland is a highly promotional article by an WP:SPA and t Mia Florentine Weiss was written by the same editor who wrote the article about the gallerist and has still not clarified therir apparent conflixt of interest. Make of that what you will. Vexations (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

::: Oh, BTW, {{u|Klabumm}} you can only !vote once. You may strike your duplicate !vote by using the strike-through markup like this {{tag|s}} or with the {{tlx|strike}}} template. ::: And if you'd like to extend that table that you keep complaining about, just add every reference you can think of in there and let everybody contribute to the analysis of those sources, (sign with your name). Here's an example of a format that's a bit easier, and allows for any number of contributors, if you're not into table markup: Talk:Andrea_Lambert_(writer)#List_of_sources. It also avoids the "binary choice" that {{u|DGG}} found problematic. So why don't we do it that way. You get to explain why the source is good, everybody else gets their say, and I get to offer my analysis too. I'll put it under a new header, and I'll add every source that ever was in the article and every source that you've proposed here. Fair? Vexations (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

::::{{u|Klabumm}}, you say that we have 22 reviews of exhibitions at the gallery; can you point me to just one of those reviews which includes substantial in-depth discussion of the gallery itself – as opposed to a work or works shown in it, or an artist or artists who exhibits there? This is somewhat academic, as this discussion is about a person and not a gallery, but possibly relevant if a page move is suggested.

::::I see that you have been asked on your talk-page whether you have a conflict of interest in relation to this and other topics that you have written about, but I do not see that you have provided an answer to that question. Please do so; in particular, please note that if you receive or expect to receive any financial reward for your edits, or are editing as part of your paid employment, disclosure is obligatory. Thank you.

::::I asked you earlier if this article is a translation, and if so, where from? Again, I do not see that you have provided any answer to that question. Attribution is required for translated material. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

== Analysis of sources ==

  1. https://chapmag.de/interview-alexander-friedmann-hahn/
  2. : This is an interview with Alexander Friedman-Hahn. Interviews are not WP:SECONDARY sources. Chapeau is not a magazine that is known for fact-checking. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. :
  4. :
  5. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/foyer-schau-mit-alexander-friedmann-hahn-positiv-denken--17154258
  6. : BZ these days is a usually reliable source, but this is about paintings in their own offices. The article is from 1994 when the BZ was a tabloid. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. :
  8. :
  9. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9Xtgx9G-6BQJ:www.welt.de/print-welt/article510698/Neuer-Versuch-neues-Genre-Sanssouci-gemalt.html+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de
  10. : Aims to supports the claim that F-H uses impasto (pastose brushstrokes != flottem Pinselstrich) No byline, absurd speculation that Frederick the Great might have commissioned work from F-H Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  11. :
  12. :
  13. https://www.galeriefriedmann-hahn.com/images/140905_Katalog_Saza_M_klein-(AD66073F-2A0-1005-B9F0-871061331441).pdf
  14. : The galley about itself. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't.Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  15. :
  16. :
  17. http://www.kunstverein-uelzen.org/pdf/chronik/2004/PM_Klasse_Baselitz.pdf
  18. : A press release from the The Kunstverein Uelzen e. V. Should support claim that "Most exhibitions are accompanied by scientific(sic) catalogues", but doesn't. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  19. :
  20. :
  21. https://www.galeriefriedmann-hahn.com/images/MIAFLORENTINEWEISS_web2-(9ED8B5BD-3FB2-1005-B763-172299525112).pdf
  22. : Published by the Gallery, not about the subject Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  23. :
  24. :
  25. http://www.zeit.de/autoren/S/Maxi_Sickert/index.xml
  26. : Not about the subject, but confirms he is a contributor to Die Zeit. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  27. :
  28. :
  29. http://art-circle.com/curators/markgisbourne/
  30. : Not about the subject, also unnecessary Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  31. :
  32. :
  33. http://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=6405
  34. : Quote from subject describres Lear's style as ""Neo-expressiv" Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  35. :
  36. :
  37. https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article88930/Friedmann-Hahn-zeigt-Werke-von-Pavel-Feinstein.html
  38. : This article from 2006 has a number of statements that could be used. He is "sold out" as a painter and also runs a gallery with a partner, Rosalind Baffoe. There's mention of his wife and a newborn son, but the focus is on the vernissage for Pavel Feinstein. It names some of the VIP guests, Avner Edelstein, Michael Sowa, Guido Sieber, Hermann Noack, Volker Christians and Wolfram Lüdecke. It give approximate prices for Feinstein's work ({{euro|7000}}}), and mentions that 7 paintings have already sold. It also mentions that a painting by A F-H sold for {{euro|11000}}. Then it announces an upcoming exhibition by former disco-queen and ex-partner of Salvador Dali, Amanda Lear. It was originally used to support the claim that his gallery and artists have been widely cited by peers and periodical articles. To some extent that is correct, even though the article never discusses the art, the program of the gallery, or its business model (IOW, analysis) and places more emphasis on what I'd call society reporting, not business news or art criticism.
  39. :
  40. :
  41. http://www.kunstforum.de/nachrichten.aspx?kw=2015-14
  42. : Kunstforum International is generally a high-quality source, but here, it is a mention of Galerie Friedmann-Hahn in a list of particpants of "Positions Berlin", a weekend "platform", where 26 galleries give "insight into the contemporary art scene in Berlin". It's a bit confusing to see what statement it is supposed to support in the current version, but it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Friedmann-Hahn&oldid=832930289 originally] supported the claim "His gallery and artists have been widely cited by peers and periodical articles". Vexations (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  43. :
  44. :
  45. http://www.paintingsforyou.de/pics/press2.html
  46. : Already discussed under https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/foyer-schau-mit-alexander-friedmann-hahn-positiv-denken--17154258 above Vexations (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  47. :
  48. :
  49. http://www.paintingsforyou.de/
  50. : Is a flash wesite. A lot of people won't even have a way to run that anymore. Under PRESSE, there are newsclippings from some bewildering sources, "20 Private Wohnträume", "Bunte", "Der Feinschmecker", but one is the article by Johann Michael Müller, about called Leben Ohne Mauer that was referred to at some point. It is about a photo project where A F-H invited 100 10-year old children to take pictures, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin wall. Die Welt published those pictures, but says nothing about the gallery. Vexations (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  51. :
  52. :
  53. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/galerie-friedmann-hahn-anne-leone-und-daniel-ludwig-zeigen-neue-werke/14696892.html
  54. : Is a review of work by Anne Leone und Daniel Ludwig. The gallery is mentioned as the venue, but not otherwise. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  55. :
  56. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/extremsport-in-berlin-schnelle-schaben-ausgestopfte-hunde/7415946.html
  57. : A description of a reception at the gallery. Or rather, a party. There's a cockroach race, plenty of kaviar and cigars, some appalling behaviour by various people and finally a woman in a white mink coat "elegantly" stepping over an unemployed homeless person. Nothing about the gallery or the gallerist though. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  58. :
  59. :
  60. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/fast-fotorealistisch-malerei-von-edite-grinberga-mein-liebstes-neglige/6309780.html
  61. : No mention of the gallery. Or the gallerist. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  62. :
  63. :
  64. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/an-der-bar/4201742.html
  65. : No mention of the gallery, but some prices {{euro|19500}} and {{euro|8900}} of work by Caroline Weihrauch. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  66. :
  67. :
  68. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/stadtleben/zeit-gewinn-der-papst-der-pafft/1715354.html
  69. : This article mentions that the gallery is in Charlottenburg, and give prices ({{euro|1400}} to {{euro|7700}}) for work by Josef Fischnaller. Vexations (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  70. :
  71. :
  72. https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article113935393/Wie-aus-Andrea-Sawatzki-die-britische-Queen-wird.html
  73. : Review of Josef Fischnaller exhibit. It cites Sophie Gerlach, and mentions that she is an employee of Galerie Friedmann-Hahn. No further mention of the gallery.
  74. :
  75. :
  76. https://www.galeriefriedmann-hahn.com/images/wwwNewsFull/130221_DWeltKompakt_Fischnaller-(B0360EC0-D6B7-1004-925D-871061331441).jpg
  77. : The website of the gallery itself with a newspaper clipping of an article that appeared in Die Welt of 23 February 2013, an announcement of an exhibition by Josef Fischnaller. Vexations (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  78. :
  79. :
  80. http://www.markusfraeger.de/berliner_zeitung.pdf
  81. : A newspaper clipping of an undated article by Ingeborg Ruthe about an exhibit by Markus Fräger. No mention of the gallery or the gallerist except as the venue. Vexations (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  82. :
  83. :
  84. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/der-new-yorker-maler-und-zeichner-donald-vaccino-laesst-sich-ungern-eingrenzen-das-eine-naehrt-das-andere-15082520
  85. : Article about exhibit of Donald Vaccino, who spent three months in Berlin at the invitation of the Galllery. Most of the works exhibited were created during that time. No further mention of the gallery. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  86. :
  87. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/die-disko-koenigin-der-siebziger-jahre-zeigt-erstmals-ihre-gemaelde-in-berlin-amanda-lear-als-malerin-15690630
  88. : No menntion of the gallery, but the price range of Amanda Lear's paintings is given: {{euro|3000}} to {{euro|15000}}. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  89. :
  90. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/caroline-weihrauchs-leidenschaftliche-bilder-mittagsglut-der-farben-15501464
  91. : Caroline Weihrauch No mention of the gallery other than as a venue.
  92. :
  93. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/die-boesen-und-die-haesslichen--aber-bitte-haarfein--guido-sieber-ergoetzt-sich-am-verbrechen-gangsterballaden-15837684
  94. : Exhibition of work by Guido Sieber. Nothing about the gallery.
  95. :
  96. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/guido-sieber-malt-berliner--milljoehs--von-heute-und-haelt-ein-zwiegespraech-mit-zille-stadtgestalten-nicht-schoen--aber-selten-14987726
  97. : Exhibition of work by Guido Sieber. Mentions a loan of work by Heinrich Zille from the Axel Springer collection. Note: Axel Springer SE owns Die Welt, but not the [Berliner Zeitung.
  98. :
  99. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/der-oesterreicher-josef-fischnaller-und-der-norweger-anders-gjennestad-in-der-galerie-friedmann-hahn-ist-schon-so-lange-her-15078730
  100. : Duo exhibit of Josef Fischnaller and Anders Gjennestad. No mention of the gallery other than as the venue. Some mention of sales; Fischnaller's photos "werden gekauft […] wie warme Semmeln" (selling like hotcakes).
  101. :
  102. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/fabel-oder-gleichnis--der-maler-pavel-feinstein-in-der-galerie-friedmann-hahn-stillleben-auf-dem-affen-planeten-14976180
  103. : Review of Pavel Feinstein's exhibit Von Dingen und Welten. No mention of the gallery other than as the venue. Noting that his work continues to be "figuarative-representational", and that he has been exhibiting with the gallery before might be interpreted as a "program" for the gallery.
  104. :
  105. https://www.galeriefriedmann-hahn.com/de/news/alte_meister_bekannte_gesichter
  106. : Newspaper clipping of artxcle in the Berliner Morgenpost (2013-04-13) about Joseph Fischnaller's exhibition Queens, Kings & Other Friends by Frederic Schwilden. No mention of the gallery or the gallery. Just the address. Vexations (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  107. :
  108. https://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/leute/article104447307/Berliner-Milljoeh-Vernissage-mit-Zille-und-Sieber.html?keepUrlContext=true
  109. : Paywalled. Vexations (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  110. :
  111. https://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/leute/article104630601/Friedmann-Hahn-zeigt-Werke-von-Pavel-Feinstein.html
  112. : Paywalled, but I've seen it before: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q0fL5TKolMMJ:https://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/leute/article104630601/Friedmann-Hahn-zeigt-Werke-von-Pavel-Feinstein.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab Also https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article88930/Friedmann-Hahn-zeigt-Werke-von-Pavel-Feinstein.html discssed above. Vexations (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  113. :
  114. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/fotografie-von-josef-fischnaller-witz-und-wahn-1.2524652
  115. : Review by Ruth Schneeberger of exhibit by Josef Fischnaller. 11 page slideshow with photos of work by Fischnaller. No mention of the gallerist or the gallery.Vexations (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  116. :
  117. https://www.bz-berlin.de/kultur/kunst/die-ausstellung-bei-der-die-fotos-gemalt-sind
  118. : No mention of the gallery or the gallerist. Vexations (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  119. :
  120. :
  121. https://www.bz-berlin.de/kultur/hier-haengt-der-sommer-ab
  122. : Two quotes from Melanie Battaglia about a summer show, a group exhibition. "At the moment many visitors to Berlin come to our gallery" and "It is important to us that the painters can really paint". Mention of the type of work and the price range of the work on sale: The focus is on figurative art, which costs between {{euro|2000}} and {{euro|15,000}}.
  123. :
  124. :
  125. https://www.welt.de/print-welt/article514634/Oelkreiden-in-Havanna-Schachteln.html
  126. : This article from 2000 is actually about A F-H. He's quoted talking about himself, how he is perceived and about the way he markets himself. Could be used? Probably, in a section about the gallerist early career, even though it's 18 years out of date and not about the gallery. Vexations (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  127. :
  128. :

::::Excellent forensic work and presentation by Vexations. This is an exemplary discussion, if I may say so. -The Gnome (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak delete: if he isn't notable enough in his own country for his own article, then why should he be notable enough to be included here?Jeff5102 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The discussion above indicates that notability is at best borderline. In such cases I prefer deletion to avoid the maintenance overhead that comes with maintaining a BLP article current, accurate, well-sourced, etc. Sandstein 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.