Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Art Ways

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. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Art Ways[edit]

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

non notable art gallery WuhWuzDat 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does highlight a pretty good track record of exhibitors and performers across its history; the question is whether that amounts to notability. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is near-notable for any alternative arts space to survive 35 years in the face of ever-changing economic challenges. More tangibly, I've added a couple more references to the article itself; between those and quite a number of appearances in a Google Books search I reckon this one is notable. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD, there's a lot of coverage in the G-News archives, see e. g. this detailed review (NY Times). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:33, 8 April 2011 (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.