Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Kaplan


 * 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 to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability for this subject or if they should be considered routine coverage. While the discussion could be relisted again for a fuller consideration of the additional sources proffered by Rwxrwxrwx, given two prior relists and the similarity of those sources to those already discussed I do not feel that another relisting is likely to lead to a clear consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Casey Kaplan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No substantial coverage--just one of a number of examples in general articles.  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as searches found some links but nothing outstandingly convincing of a better article. Still questionable overall, SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing remarkable about the said company to warrant notability. Mwenzangu (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep references in article as well as those:,  grants passing WP:GNG in my opinion. NYT, WSJ and artnews can stand for reliable sources and the Casey Kaplan has enough coverage there, I think. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Arthistorian1977 that it passes WP:GNG. I can also see sufficient coverage out there, and the article is well enough written and not spammy. Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree that the mere fact the art shows take place at a particular art gallery make either of them notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't find any specific guidelines for galleries or museums, so I would try to argue basing on WP:ORG. The basic criteria says that organisation is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, which we do have in this case. Now, my opinion is that the gallery or museum itself is just a mere box made of walls, unless the building it resided in is of some historical or architectural importance. Museums and galleries are know for representing the arts, so if we have significant coverage of exhibitions or events in specific gallery or museum it makes it the subject of an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty understanding this comment, at least for museums, which have a major social role, a curated collection, a corporate identity. Being in the permanent collection of a major museum is explicitly one of the established guidelines at WP:CREATIVE. Galleries are normally commercial galleries, whose intention is the exhibition and sale of artworks. They are operated usually by individuals, who use their personal artistic and business judgement in selecting what to exhibit. Depending on the degree of selectivity of their selections, exhibiting in a famous gallery might contribute to notability, but in general does not for most. Anyway, this article is not about the gallery mentioned, but in using the artist's exhibition there to show notability .  DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I'm a non-expert in this area, but I would say this subject just passes the general notability guideline. QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The sources found for this article are profile pages from non-independent/journalistic sources (artnet, for instance, is a commercial organization for promoting and *selling* art, not a reputable news organization with a history of fact-checking and editorial control - per ), lists of galleries in which Casey Kaplan is included only amongst a number of other galleries (WSJ and NYT articles), lists of showings, and notices that showings are happening there for a particular artist.  We need secondary sources that discuss the subject comprehensively. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles show notability:
 * http://www.timeout.com/newyork/art/casey-kaplan
 * http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flower-district-the-next-chelsea-1424223982
 * http://therealdeal.com/2014/07/01/fine-art-gallery-to-shake-up-flower-district/
 * http://www.flashartonline.com/2015/02/casey-kaplan-on-his-new-location-new-york/
 * http://observer.com/2014/06/casey-kaplan-is-headed-to-the-flower-district/
 * &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2016 (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.