Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pékin Fine Arts

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pékin Fine Arts[edit]

Delete. Non-notable art gallery, no independent references, fails WP:COMPANY. Major expansion of the article. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - This article does claim notoriety of the gallery which would also prove the notoriety of its creator (the subject of the article). It has no citations to prove said notoriety but I believe that some time should be give for the creator/editors to post citations. OlYeller^Talktome 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I looked for some reliable sources and found the text on the wiki article was copied and pasted from the Pekin Fine Arts official website. I'm changing my vote to Delete for that reason. OlYeller^Talktome 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and copyvio to boot. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the G12 deletion and just removed all that text, leaving a stub behind. It's what one should do in those cases. Back on topic, I think there might be sources, there were some when I Google News-ed it. Regards So Why 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references and a quick news search shows that this is not a typical art gallery. This art gallery is mention by western media as the new hot spot of art in Pekin, this is a claim of notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The references provided only mention the gallery in passing; hardly substantial. The first reference doesn't seem to mention the gallery at all (if it does, I missed it, which kind of shows how little is being written). I found the mention in the first article listed: a brief interview with the gallery director about the Beijing art scene and the restaurant mentioned in the New York Times article. The google search provided above only point to promotional sites and the existing references. There's really no substancial coverage beyond the trivial at this point. freshacconci talktalk 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the much improved article as it now stands. You see: we art editors are not all crazed deletionists... freshacconci talktalk 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ADVERT. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per sources, borderline notability is established here, and the copyvio is resolved (might want to delete that revision just in case). WP:ADVERT is all well and good, but notability trumps it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY because the coverage is trivial and incidental.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference 1 and 3 are trivial. 4 only mentions the founder and 2 contains too little information to support a fully article. Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG and makes no other claims to investigate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article expanded throughout with additional references. Existing comments in this AfD relate to earlier versions[1] and [2] so will need to be revisited for the current version. Ty 02:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per preceding comment. Listed by The New York Times as amongst the five "top museums and galleries" in Beijing. There are multiple references in major sources, and even when the gallery is not the main subject, the mentions are not trivial, as the gallery owner is consistently seen as a significant figure to quote on topics. Ty 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good material..Modernist (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (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.