Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerhill 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 no consensus. Ged UK 13:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somerhill Gallery

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

Tagged for notability since 2009 the gallery closed three years ago and had only one notable artist exhibiting there. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A local business with local coverage is all I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Gallery with a long history and significant regional importance asserted in the sources (first gallery in the area, sources claim importance in art scene in southeast US). The fact that it has closed is irrelevant. Notability derives from reporting on the gallery itself not who exhibited there. WP:GNG does not exclude local/regional press, even though it's general practice that local press counts for less than e.g. New York Times. It's not the Guggenheim but it's got more coverage than most private/commercial galleries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this just meets WP:GNG, but agree it's close.Squareanimal (talk) 10:41, 29 November 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.