Talk:Gillie and Marc

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Gillie and Marc is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

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 articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

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 articles

Conflict of Interests and Promotional Tone[edit]

This article has a history of conflict of interest, with contributions from the subject of the article and/or their assistants. Obviously SPA Gillieandmarcart is them and WP:COI. It appears that SPA Emcarthur and Emca91 are a former employee, as listed on LinkedIn. SPU Emmasalkild has also worked for them, and the recent edits from AlexandraCorey are being made by their "Global Marketing Manager". As well, several IP editors have added promotional text, one of whom removed the flags I put on the article; these IP addresses resolve to NSW, Australia (G+M home) or the more recent ones to Toronto, where the Marketing Manager has stated they live.

I note that Castlemate, Colapeninsula and Diannaa have spent a lot of effort repeatedly cleaning out these promotional additions. At this point we have an unduly long and obviously promotional article, full of images that are ambiguously/possibly WP:COPYVIO, with a CV of unverified public sculptures and awards of unclear notability, that whitewash the criticism of the work.

I also note that there is a strong presence of vanity galleries in the list of exhibitions, for example: London Biennale, Gagliardi Gallery, Biennale di Chianciano, Florence Biennale are all pay-to-play. I am not contesting the notability, which was assessed a year ago: I think that they likely meet WP:GNG, if not WP:ARTIST, due to the attention they have received, which has been scathing criticism at times. See: www.vulture.com/2018/03/the-new-astor-place-rhino-sculpture-is-a-kitschy-monstrosity.html and https://www.boweryboogie.com/2018/04/after-chinatown-protests-dogman-sculpture-headed-to-foley-square/

I am not sure what to do here. I am wondering if this needs a WP:TNT, either in full, or in part, or maybe just a revert to Diannaa's last stable version [1]. Should I start a post on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I'm putting this here, to elicit a discussion, before taking any action. --Theredproject (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most promotional page I have ever seen for an artist. I fixed some dupe refs (there are dozens) and some of the lede, but I think that TNT is the only solution, given the awful promotional editing that has gone on.104.163.159.237 (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did the TNT. You can see all the in progress edits on my sandbox: User:Theredproject/sandbox/scratchbox. It prob needs some ^{[citation needed]} tags, and to have the refs cleaned one time more. 104.163.159.237 you can remove the flags, if you feel that is appropriate at this juncture. --Theredproject (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theredproject, I have edited the page to make it neutral and added a few tags. Can you work on the further clean up? 2405:205:1380:E683:898D:4139:5F90:9872 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede + Relative Importance of Criticism[edit]

Hi Revival938 thanks for working on this article, and cleaning out the promocruft. And thanks MB for keeping an eye on the article. I would like to restore some of the content that you migrated out of the lede that covers the significant criticism and controversy they have received/created by their work. I think it is fine to leave the bulk of the language where it is in the other sections, but I would like to put a one or two sentence summary of this criticism back into the lede, as it is actually what the WP:RS cover. By leaving them out, it doesn't indicate the relative prominence of this criticism. This is particularly important, given that this article has been a site for repeated NPOV edits to try to whitewash this criticism. You can see that history in the history, and on this talk page. I wanted to raise this issue here, before making the edits. --Theredproject (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Do we need both those tags at the top of the article? They seem to say the same thing. Perhaps we only need one? --2603:7000:2143:8500:8496:96B1:6FAE:A341 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the artists Gillis & Marc make the sculpture of Ruth G B look like a man. No hair, no breasts. People will look at the statue & think it is a man.[edit]

I am so sad the statue of RGB looks like a man. If Ruth saw it she would be go home & cry. 2600:6C40:4200:351E:C03E:1696:C5:FC8C (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]