Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Alive Gallery, New Delhi
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 delete. Sandstein 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Art Alive Gallery, New Delhi[edit]
- Art Alive Gallery, New Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement with dubious assertions of notability and COI history; I remain unconvinced that it can be salvaged in its present form, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I found lots of news sources listing events going on at the gallery, some of them mentioning the gallery prominently;[1][2][3] however, I couldn't find any sources that discussed the gallery itself in any detail, so on balance I think it fails WP:ORG. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mr. Stradivarius and WP:ORGIN: the venue does not inherit notability from the events or individuals associated with it. I couldn't find anything to support notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if galleries don't derive their notability from the artists/shows associated with them, what are the guidelines for their notability? The only reason people go to galleries is to see the shows. Otherwise, they're just buildings. Does this mean that no galleries are ever notable? Even those famous galleries draw their (real world, not wiki sense) notability from the artists they represent, etc. That's what draws other artists to their portfolios. That's a guideline question though and not for this AfD. That said, this article as it stands is a holy mess. I tried to clean it up when I removed the speedy back in January, but if you stub it down to remove the puffery it's an A7. If you add in the info on the shows/artists they rep, we're back to the notability question so stumped. StarM 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - seems to me that a for-profit gallery is subject to the same requirements for notability as any other retail shop: what are the reliable sources writing about the gallery an sich as opposed to the merchandise (i.e., the art) they sell? Notability is not contagious: I don't become notable for selling notable books by notable authors; a bar doesn't become notable for selling notable beverages or for having notable customers. Where are the substantive articles actually writing about the gallery? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I see your point, I just don't think it's that clear cut. I'm guessing by your bookselling analogy that you're a bookseller? If you're notable (not saying either way) you're notable for the books you sell, the authors you host, etc. If you don't have either of those, you're four walls and a roof. I don't see how it's that different to a gallery. For a bar, I'd argue that's exactly why they're notable. I'm not arguing "other stuff" but see, Elaine's for example. The exact reason it was notable (real world) was the customers it served. The same can be said for Carnegie_Deli. I'm not sold that this gallery is notable, which is why I'm not !voting, but I don't think notability here can be completely separated from the artists. If there were write ups on the gallery (and may be in Hindi language sources) they'd no doubt talk about the gallery's history exhibiting A, B and C or hosting guests 1,2,3, that's what galleries do. How do you separate them? StarM 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I'm a clerk (now part-time) for Renaissance Books which is notable as a business for its size, its unique venue at the airport, its arguments with the city and neighbors, etc.; not for the books it sells or the authors it hosts. Retail businesses must have coverage of themselves that is about them not about the subjects with which they are associated. We see no evidence that there are articles about this gallery in and of itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply gotcha, think we're going to agree to disagree here. I'm still somewhat torn on this, but don't ultimately care enough about the gallery to try to save it. I tend to wonder along same lines as Mr. Stradivarius about language issues, but don't speak any of the local languages. If someone finds sources at some point it can always be re-created. StarM 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I'm a clerk (now part-time) for Renaissance Books which is notable as a business for its size, its unique venue at the airport, its arguments with the city and neighbors, etc.; not for the books it sells or the authors it hosts. Retail businesses must have coverage of themselves that is about them not about the subjects with which they are associated. We see no evidence that there are articles about this gallery in and of itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I see your point, I just don't think it's that clear cut. I'm guessing by your bookselling analogy that you're a bookseller? If you're notable (not saying either way) you're notable for the books you sell, the authors you host, etc. If you don't have either of those, you're four walls and a roof. I don't see how it's that different to a gallery. For a bar, I'd argue that's exactly why they're notable. I'm not arguing "other stuff" but see, Elaine's for example. The exact reason it was notable (real world) was the customers it served. The same can be said for Carnegie_Deli. I'm not sold that this gallery is notable, which is why I'm not !voting, but I don't think notability here can be completely separated from the artists. If there were write ups on the gallery (and may be in Hindi language sources) they'd no doubt talk about the gallery's history exhibiting A, B and C or hosting guests 1,2,3, that's what galleries do. How do you separate them? StarM 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - seems to me that a for-profit gallery is subject to the same requirements for notability as any other retail shop: what are the reliable sources writing about the gallery an sich as opposed to the merchandise (i.e., the art) they sell? Notability is not contagious: I don't become notable for selling notable books by notable authors; a bar doesn't become notable for selling notable beverages or for having notable customers. Where are the substantive articles actually writing about the gallery? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it could be that sources exist in one of the local languages. Does anyone know anyone that can do a source search in Hindi, or possibly Punjabi or Urdu? (Though I do note that our New Delhi article states that English is the primary written language of the city.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:00, 2 April 2012 (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.