Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Street 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Street Gallery

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

Distinctly non-notable gallery. I've been unable to find sources besides the two already mentioned by the author, one of which is a story about the gallery closing. Author has attempted to lean on the notability of a couple of the artists that have exhibitioned there but, of course, notability is not inherited. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In case of galleries, a review of exhibition of notable artist mat throw a weight for keeping, since without exhibitions, gallery is just a mere walls, but in this case, the gallery just didn't had enough time to gain the notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matt Moravec and Alex Gartenfeld might pass WP:GNG themselves (they've received plenty of attention form the art press), and the West Street gallery might have a place in an article about either of them, but since no such articles exist, and this article can't be sourced properly, I see no alternative to deletion f0r now. Mduvekot (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, only existed for 2 years and thus nothing suggesting solidly convincing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 8 April 2016 (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.