Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Silverman Gallery

Add links
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 delete. Having disregarded the opinion of Matthewwells55, who has been indeffed as a sock. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Jessica Silverman Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this comes near to meeting WP:CORP. The gallery does what all art galleries do – have shows, try to sell works of art, promote themselves and sometimes the artists, etc. The article was created by a user named Jsginfo, and appears to have been an attempt at promotion from the day it was started. We don't allow promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although consider moving to Jessica Silverman). She and her gallery are widely covered in the art press and somewhat in Bay Area media. I added various sources. The content was not in the slightest bit promotional, so that cannot be a reason for deletion. It comes down purely to notability. With coverage in various publications, she passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a promotional entry; the Jessica Gallery is now established in the Bay Area and the entry is sufficiently referenced User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as blatant self-promotion of a non-notable gallery. --Lockley (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure whether the article is about Jessica Silverman or the gallery. I'd be willing to presume notability of the gallery based on its own website (the advertorials are sufficient for existence), Jessica Silverman herself is not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks focus, it discusses both the gallery and the owner. I don't see anything that would substantiate a claim of importance or notability. The article says nothing about the gallery besides where it is, when it was founded and what it sells. Those things apply to any retail establishment, they exist somewhere, they were established and they sell stuff. As for the founder herself, that her father created an important collection of Fluxus work is immaterial, notability is not inherited. Mduvekot (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Silverman_Gallery&oldid=1143884213"