Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saatchi Yates

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saatchi Yates

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice declined at AfD, See Draft:Saatchi_Yates, unresolved questions about Conflict of Interest. Vexations (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The gallery is notable, AFC is a voluntary process, and a perceived COI is not a strong enough reason to delete an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cullen328, That's not how I read WP:COIEDIT. The creator of the draft has a clear CoI as evidenced by the edit summaries: Special:Contributions/Conarco20: "Publishing the Saatchi Yates page for the first time. All information has been provided by the directors of the gallery and the press coverage." and "we made the article less opinionated and more fact based, and relying on sources". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saatchi_Yates&oldid=1035423352 is not exactly a copy/paste move, but largely based in the draft. This version should be removed and the AfC process should resume to deal with the fact that the subject is involved in the creation of the article. Vexations (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vexations, "should" is not a synonym for "must". "Should" indicates a recommendation but not an absolute requirement. The gallery is notable and the encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. The comments that you interpret as evidence of COI, I interpret as an effort toward verifiability and the neutral point of view. The article is surprisingly unpromotional if your COI assumption is true, and can easily be improved as time goes by. Why send it back to AFC? That's busy work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cullen328, Conarco20 identifies as "we". Per WP:ROLE accounts shared by multiple people are as a rule forbidden and blocked. This is part of an effort to promote the gallery and the artists that it represents. The gallery that has only been around since October 2020, and has organized just three exhibitions: Pascal Sender 15 October - 20 December 2020, a group show with Draft:Jin Angdoo,Draft:Mathieu Julien, Draft:Kevin Pinsembert and Hams Klemens 3 March - 26 May 2021 and Tesfaye Urgessa. All emerging artists with no career to speak of, showing at a brand-new gallery with no established record of anything. And Boom! All of a sudden they're all notable, because their promotional campaign has been so effective, and we refuse to follow our own policies and guidelines. Bwegh... Vexations (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2021 (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.