The result was keep. just a tad enough consensus on coverage to keep the article. Otherwise there was nowhere near consensus for deletion JForget 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} |
A non-notable commercial art gallery. Though the article cites several sources (and more can be found if you look), these involve oblique mentions, passing statements that so-and-so had a piece at this gallery, etc. So, for instance, the article has a citation to Barron's Magazine, but if you look at the piece, which the gallery helpfully excerpts here, you'll see it's just quotation concerning some artist, followed by a short sentence about "her roster." The other coverage I've found is similarly insubstantial. My PROD was removed with the comment, "[P]ublished book and content with multiple independent references added to page." However, the "book" is just a self-published commemorative piece, as you can see here, which of course has no bearing on notability. All told, this company simply fails WP:CORP. Glenfarclas ( talk) 07:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. just a tad enough consensus on coverage to keep the article. Otherwise there was nowhere near consensus for deletion JForget 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} |
A non-notable commercial art gallery. Though the article cites several sources (and more can be found if you look), these involve oblique mentions, passing statements that so-and-so had a piece at this gallery, etc. So, for instance, the article has a citation to Barron's Magazine, but if you look at the piece, which the gallery helpfully excerpts here, you'll see it's just quotation concerning some artist, followed by a short sentence about "her roster." The other coverage I've found is similarly insubstantial. My PROD was removed with the comment, "[P]ublished book and content with multiple independent references added to page." However, the "book" is just a self-published commemorative piece, as you can see here, which of course has no bearing on notability. All told, this company simply fails WP:CORP. Glenfarclas ( talk) 07:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply