The result was delete. First of all, it is perfectly fine for an article subject to be completely invisible to Google so long as some other significant coverage in the form of print or broadcast can be reasonably demonstrated to exist. That being said, that does not appear to be the case here. The argument to keep is based on the assertion that they exist but does not back up that assertion in any but the most vague manner, making it impossible to judge the validity of those alleged sources. The lack of sources combined with the comments on the talk page suggest that original research was in fact the primary resource used in creating this article. The talk page is also very concerning as it was overtly hostile towards anyone editing the page unless their credentials in the art community are sufficient. If a subject is adequately covered by sources, a person with no knowledge whatsoever of the article subject should still be perfectly able to edit and improve it. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject doesn't appear to be notable. I've found no coverage in reliable sources via Google or Google News, and three entries in Google Books - two of which are prefixed with "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." - the other appears to be a digital media catalogue. Two local newspaper reviews are given in the article, which I've searched for on Google and can't find. An article about one founder, Leslie Streit, exists so a merge and redirect may be possible. Speedy was declined; author contests deletion. Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
You are using GOOGLE as your primary reference for something that ENDED before Google was born? How stupid can you get? Notability for new WP editors seems to consist of "pre-Internet" - which has no value, and "Internet" which is worthwhile. If I were to find a copy of one of the missing books burned in the Library at Alexandria and mention it on WP, you'd probably say it has no value because it isn't in Google?
Do your primary research - Visit the Citadel Cannery arts community, look in the Morgue at San Jose Metro, San Jose Mercury, the grants issued by the State of California, the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose. Few if any of these are available online so you'll have to do some leg work. Mccainre ( talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Do you want me to submit pdfs of the reviews in magazines like High Performance (the gold standard for performance art at the time), San Jose Mercury News and BAVC's VN? Just because someone didn't get massive press at the time does not make them "not notable" - look at the arguments over who invented the first mechanical or electronic computers, where the earliest versions had almost no contemporary publicity. For decades we were told that Babbage was the first because he was a well known public figure in England - now we know that analytical machines were in use in the B.C. era by Greek navigators.
It is contradictory to say that there is nothing in Google about something in the past, therefore it isn't important. I've found that many "notables" in history are poorly represented in Google. You have to look directly to the specialty organizations and publications to establish notability in many areas - and many of these have not yet been placed on the web. A good example is within this very note - High Performance magazine. see [1] Mccainre ( talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. First of all, it is perfectly fine for an article subject to be completely invisible to Google so long as some other significant coverage in the form of print or broadcast can be reasonably demonstrated to exist. That being said, that does not appear to be the case here. The argument to keep is based on the assertion that they exist but does not back up that assertion in any but the most vague manner, making it impossible to judge the validity of those alleged sources. The lack of sources combined with the comments on the talk page suggest that original research was in fact the primary resource used in creating this article. The talk page is also very concerning as it was overtly hostile towards anyone editing the page unless their credentials in the art community are sufficient. If a subject is adequately covered by sources, a person with no knowledge whatsoever of the article subject should still be perfectly able to edit and improve it. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject doesn't appear to be notable. I've found no coverage in reliable sources via Google or Google News, and three entries in Google Books - two of which are prefixed with "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." - the other appears to be a digital media catalogue. Two local newspaper reviews are given in the article, which I've searched for on Google and can't find. An article about one founder, Leslie Streit, exists so a merge and redirect may be possible. Speedy was declined; author contests deletion. Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
You are using GOOGLE as your primary reference for something that ENDED before Google was born? How stupid can you get? Notability for new WP editors seems to consist of "pre-Internet" - which has no value, and "Internet" which is worthwhile. If I were to find a copy of one of the missing books burned in the Library at Alexandria and mention it on WP, you'd probably say it has no value because it isn't in Google?
Do your primary research - Visit the Citadel Cannery arts community, look in the Morgue at San Jose Metro, San Jose Mercury, the grants issued by the State of California, the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose. Few if any of these are available online so you'll have to do some leg work. Mccainre ( talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Do you want me to submit pdfs of the reviews in magazines like High Performance (the gold standard for performance art at the time), San Jose Mercury News and BAVC's VN? Just because someone didn't get massive press at the time does not make them "not notable" - look at the arguments over who invented the first mechanical or electronic computers, where the earliest versions had almost no contemporary publicity. For decades we were told that Babbage was the first because he was a well known public figure in England - now we know that analytical machines were in use in the B.C. era by Greek navigators.
It is contradictory to say that there is nothing in Google about something in the past, therefore it isn't important. I've found that many "notables" in history are poorly represented in Google. You have to look directly to the specialty organizations and publications to establish notability in many areas - and many of these have not yet been placed on the web. A good example is within this very note - High Performance magazine. see [1] Mccainre ( talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply