Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Team Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable gallery. RS refs are about artists, and only mention gallery in passing ("currently having a show at...") Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps you did not examine the references. The New Yorkarticle is not a PR piece,but a full article. The Art in America article is even fuller, and is in a major professional magazine for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, I will admit some misreading. I was using the "articles" section as if it were the references for some reason. And for all of those, I still hold that the subjects of these articles are the artists, and not the gallery. I see several "new york" articles, but none that I consider about the gallery. In any case, that is moot as I agree the two actual refs are about the gallery. If those are deemed RS, then I am in the wrong on this nomination. I do not know why I misread the sections in this way.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've moved the article to the correct capitalisation, and I think I've made the correct adjustments to the links at the top of this discussion to correct the links. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 14 February 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.