Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baton Rouge Gallery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Hdt83 Chat 02:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baton Rouge Gallery[edit]
- Baton Rouge Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The first sentence claims that this gallery "has been a prominent feature of Baton Rouge, Louisiana since 1965", but it doesn't become clear how. Yes, the article establishes that the gallery exists, but it doesn't become clear how what the gallery does makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. There's no indication whatsoever that it's any different from the millions of galleries throughout the world. A ecisBrievenbus 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any evidence of this having coverage in second party sources, seems non-notable. --neonwhite user page talk 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in among the show listings is RS coverage I agree that the article needs a clean-up and I'll do my best to get to it this week during the AfD as I believe it can be cleaned up and notability established. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot see that any of these that 'addresses the subject directly in detail' --neonwhite user page talk 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, you read more than 1000 sources? I was able to find 6 without much effort. There are more behind pay gates as well. Regardless, I gutted and re-wrote. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot see that any of these that 'addresses the subject directly in detail' --neonwhite user page talk 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I gutted and stubbed the article, adding in sourcing about its tenure as one of the longest running professional artist co-ops in the country and its role in Baton Rouge's art community. While it may not change the nom or any !voters POV, I think it's a better article from which to gauge notability than the previous copyvio TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely Keep. I want to ask the nominator, did you google the museum before tagging AFD? I honestly never heard the museum (I don't travel a lot) but my 5 second googling shows a lot of verifiable sources with local "MAP". If the gallery did not have its notability, the search engine would not show it. --Appletrees (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hits on a search engine are not a criteria for notability. --neonwhite user page talk 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out that the nominator did not even try to confirm that the article falls under the notability criteria. Of the result by hitting an search engine, I can see many reliable sources. Please read the context.--Appletrees (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched but failed to find anything substantial, that's what led me to nominate the article. The only real mention of the gallery I found was this announcement in a local newspaper. That's it. All the other hits are Yellow Pages entries, personal webpages, directories, you name it, all a lot of non-reliable sources. A ecisBrievenbus 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While that may have been true at the time, I don't think it is now. Please note changes to the article since then. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched but failed to find anything substantial, that's what led me to nominate the article. The only real mention of the gallery I found was this announcement in a local newspaper. That's it. All the other hits are Yellow Pages entries, personal webpages, directories, you name it, all a lot of non-reliable sources. A ecisBrievenbus 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out that the nominator did not even try to confirm that the article falls under the notability criteria. Of the result by hitting an search engine, I can see many reliable sources. Please read the context.--Appletrees (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hits on a search engine are not a criteria for notability. --neonwhite user page talk 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article has been much improved over the course of this AfD, and now meets notability standards using reliable sources. Nice save, Travellingcari! Risker (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Now that TravellingCari has removed the questionable content and added in plenty of references, I think this is an article worth keeping. — λ (talk) 23:34, 24 May 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.