Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative exhibition spaces

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. Merge discussions, if desired, can be carried out on the article's talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative exhibition spaces

This article is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF of a non-notable term. Tavix (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's simply not much to say about this concept. --Lockley (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Vague. Merge with Art gallery, per Johnbod's suggestion below, recognizing subsequent discussion and improvements to article. JNW (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition with little chance of being expanded. Notability is completely irrelevant in this case. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom..Modernist (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see below..Modernist (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish people would stop submitting their linguistic inventions. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and plenty of scope for expansion. Art in America provides a history [1] and The new York Times gives some opinion [2]. This book [3] says that the subject has its own "significant body of literature" within museum studies.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Contemporary art gallery, or Art gallery; no need for separate article, especially when the only one mentioned has been going since 1976. However the subject is clearly notable, and the nomination now outdated, so keep rather than delete. If kept, rename using "space". Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some more content. The phenomena is well documented, and has played a significant role in the development of performance and video art.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethicoaestheticist. Yes, expanding the article is necessary, but this is significant territory and has been well documented beyond a neologism. I can add info here about Canada and artist-run centres, and I'm sure more international info could be added as well. freshacconci talktalk 17:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethicoaestheticist although the article needs a lot of help..Modernist (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:09, 5 November 2008 (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.