Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krowswork gallery

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 delete. Secret ^account 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krowswork gallery

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

nonnotable art gallery, no indication given by reference of any in depth coverage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This gallery is consistently cited as one of the most noteworthy contemporary art galleries in the East Bay, CA art scene. I wrote this article because I was hoping to continue with a project of writing up important galleries in an art community that is growing at a rapid rate. I am not associated with this gallery, but I do live in the East Bay, CA. As cited in the noteability guidelines, this gallery has "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I.e. KQED, KUSF, East Bay Express, Art Practice, Stretcher, etc. Do I have time to write up all these references? No. But neither should this article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3215:5F60:E2F8:47FF:FE2B:8870 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has been cited in multiple media, provide the references and it can stay. It is the responsibility of the article creator to assert minimal notability with reliable sources, not the job of other editors to prove any unsourced assertions right or wrong. I did find one more ref, from KQED, may not be enough. If there are good print references not accessible on the net, those count.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only refs are from very local media, & no notable artists (with articles anyway) listed as exhibited. It isn't enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no significant coverage found from non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2013 (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.