Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stride Gallery
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samuel Blanning (talk | contribs) at 01:47, 14 November 2006 (closing, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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. No-one appears to be challenging Mereda's point that there are no indications that the subject has been covered by reliable third party sources, no other substantial claim that the subject merits coverage in an encyclopaedia. (If being 20 years old is a claim of notability, where's my article?) Google hits and WP:USEFUL are also non-criteria. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stride Gallery
From PROD, where the reason given was "Non-notable local organization, fails WP:ORG." It's been around for 20 years, though, so I think I'd like AfD to take a look. -Splash - tk 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Right on the edge, makes some assertion of notability in claims of what appears to be a published book. Has been around for a while, is not some art gallery that popped up yesterday to be replaced by a bank today. Chris Kreider 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - quite a number of google hits for a relatively small local organisation. If some good, third party sources can be found I'd recommend keeping the article MidgleyDJ 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I prodded this article (checking through a category) when the sources I found in googling just didn't convince me about notability. For interest, three other open discussions about arts organisations at the moment are on Durham Association for Downtown Arts, Jansanskrity, and Transition Gallery. Can we be clear here? Is anyone saying that it has "a significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject"? Or is it longevity (20 years?) that ought to be relevant? Or what else is it here that matters?? --Mereda 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) So I say delete. (And it was just an anniversary exhibition not a published book.) --Mereda 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a useful article for anyone wanting information on the arts infrastructure, where valuable organisations often do not command easily obtainable media coverage, because such organisations are neglected by the media. Here is an opportunity for wikipedia to be more useful and informative than mainstream media. Tyrenius 00:19, 12 November 2006 (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.