Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Yard


 * 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. No prejudice to recreation iff she becomes notable. NW ( Talk ) 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Alice Yard

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is a non-notable venue--non-notable in Wikipedia terms, of course. No reliable and useful references are provided, and the only relevant mentions I can find are in a Trinidad and Tobago's Newsday article and in a Boston Globe article. Neither of them amount to significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and as prodder. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alice Yard is on the up and up and should be watched. Just last week, New York Times Art Director, Steven Heller, mentioned a group Alice Yard hosted, called Draconian Switch, on his blog. and Alice Yard Blog links have jumped suddenly due to this mention. I think Wikipedia would to well to give a page about alice yard a chance, it could become a very "notable venue" very suddenly.  Is.coffee.art (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. When it becomes notable, an article can be written THEN (and with reliable sources to estsblish notability, not blogs or hearsay). &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right on. When it becomes notable, I'm on that bandwagon. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability at this time. All I've been able to find is passing-mention in third-party sources and attempts to have it ride the coattails of artists' notability. That's not WP:N. If and when it does 'become a very "notable venue"' (with reliable sources supporting notability in the Wikipedia sense, then an article can be created. There's no hurry, and WP is not for building support for not-already-notable things. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was about having information for people when they were curious about something. I'm not trying to raise awareness, or to obtain some sort of endorsement from WP, its just something that is important to some people and that others might want to know more about. perhaps it is more notable in the Caribbean than here in the United States but I dont think that should take away from it's importance. It has not only been mentioned in several Caribbean papers but also the Boston Globe as Drmies noted. Is.coffee.art (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.