Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YYZ Artists' Outlet

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 As consensus seems clear that the sourcing is based on some of the works this studio hosted and not the studio themselves. Willing to userfy it however. Secret ^account 04:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YYZ Artists' Outlet

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

the only references are to the subject's website. There is no independent information about this organization, it is a non-notable business, it is too short to be an encyclopedic article, it would appear to be merely an advertizement for the business. Kanuk (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This one is tricky. Like a lot of articles on galleries, it is difficult to find sources that are about the gallery itself and not the exhibitions that took place in the gallery. Adding to this difficulty, YYZ has a publishing arm, YYZ Books which makes finding independent sources difficult. As well, YYZ Books is actually an excellent publisher and many top critics and scholars have books published there. There are actually two books that would serve as good sources to establish notability for YYZ except those books were published by: YYZ Books. Because Canada is so small, population-wise, there tends to be a lot of cross-over between different institutions, publishers, universities and so on. In other words, you see the same names popping up. And since only Canadians tend to write about Canadian topics, sorting through this is difficult. I have found several newspaper sources that I feel will establish notability. I will add these as soon as I can and will expand the article. There is one good book source so far that I would add but I want to take it to the RS notice board as it is published by YYZ Books and on the surface would appear self-published. On the contrary, YYZ Books is quasi-independent and government supported meaning publishing self-promotional fluff would be detrimental as funding could be cut to the publishing arm. And the writers involved with the book have no affiliation with the gallery. So I'm going to run it by the notice board and make sure that all the t's are crossed on that and the source can be used. I think with the newspaper articles establishing notability and the book providing sourced info about the gallery's history, I think this article could be a keep. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first few versions that contained the COPYVIO and soft delete the article so that if someone can write a properly sourced version that shows notability, it can be created. Note to closing admin: If the end result is other than delete or soft delete, please delete the COPYVIO'd versions from the version history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'weak keep agree that article could use improvement and additional sources, but notability appears to exist - just needs more independent citation. (Pcatanese (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though the studios have been there for 25 years I can't find any reliable coverage online (not even a hint of it). The article is a one line stub and makes no claims of notability at the moment, it can be easily recreated if the studios become well known in the future (or if someone discovers some offline coverage). Currently serves no purpose and fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - They are behind pay walls, but a google news archive search shows quite a bit of coverage about specific artist's works being displayed at the gallery. This would seem to indicate that the gallery has some degree of recognition or importance although arguably a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. What I don't see is coverage that is about the gallery itself. If a couple of sources of that nature could be found, I would lean towards a keep when combined with the review of the exhibitions and installations. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 12 March 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.