Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CentralTrak: The UT Dallas Artist Residency


 * 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   merge to University of Texas at Dallas academic programs.  MBisanz  talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

CentralTrak: The UT Dallas Artist Residency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic of this article is not notable and fails WP:GNG, considering it is a local residency program. It also needs more reliable sources because the sources are primary sources affiliated with the subject. JHU bal  27  03:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The article text is substantially copied from the sections on "The University of Texas at Dallas: History" and "Location" on this webpage. AllyD (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed what I believe is all of the copyvio content. -- Kinu  t/c 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This sounds like a good residency programme but unfortunately none of the sources that I can find are sufficiently independent. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm not seeing much third-party coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Kinu  t/c 04:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets notability. Numerous sources independent of the venue write about it. Please see discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to University of Texas at Dallas academic programs. Coming here from a question left at WP:N, the sourcing is all local, and given we're talking about a building that houses 8 students at a time, and only existing since 2008, a standalone page is highly questionable. Since this is part of the Arts school residency program, it makes sense to discuss it in that program's section (along with a redirect and anchor). --M ASEM (t) 00:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable, and an interesting program...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume that it being interesting is your personal opinion (it's mine, too) but what do you think makes it notable. More specifically what guidelines do you believe can be used to call this subject notable?  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to University of Texas at Dallas academic programs. I've participated in a discussion on the talk page with the author and on WP:N's talk page and ultimately, I think that this residency program/residence/art gallery falls into WP:ORG which it fails as all of the coverage comes from local sources.  I think an argument could be made that venues that show notable art (music, paintings, etc.) made by notable people, should be notable but I haven't been convinced that this is one of those cases.  The subject definitely shows signs of importance in its area and to UT at Dallas which is why I'm !voting merge.  Not much information should be lost in the process and if the subject does become notable, the article can be restored.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to University of Texas at Dallas academic programs: No sources showing anything more than local significance. Sources provided are all local, routine, tangential, trivial or not independent. I couldn't find anything promising myself. It may merit a brief mention in the UTD article, but not it's own free-standing article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:ORG is inappropriate for evaluating for notability a gallery of contemporary art. I think much material will be lost in merging this article into the "University of Texas at Dallas academic programs" article and needlessly so. We should use a little common sense here, or we should write guidelines appropriate to evaluating for notability galleries of contemporary art. A generally outstanding feature of contemporary art is that it is often "idea-oriented". The exhibitions held at such venues are either taken seriously or not. When arts reviewers write critiques of exhibitions at galleries of contemporary art, they are recognizing the seriousness of the ideas inherent in the art. This is basically visual art that we are talking about in relation to the CentralTrak gallery. Cutting edge visual art tends to have an unusually or unexpectedly strong international orientation. Additionally, there is a very real benefit in seeing art up close and personal; reproductions of art are generally a poor substitute for seeing art first hand. Therefore reviewers of shows are likely to be local to the area as it is less likely that reviewers from greater distances are going to travel to the gallery. We should not be placing as great an emphasis on non-local sources as WP:ORG might lead one to believe. Finally Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. What would we gain by cramming an article such as this into a relatively unrelated article? Contemporary art tends to constantly turn out something new. The "CentralTrak" article would tend to be a more active article than the more staid "University of Texas at Dallas academic programs" article. I think we should allow this article the space to grow. I've placed a link for this discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is not supported by WP policies and guidelines, and, in fact, contradicts them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Contradicts" in what way? I think I've only suggested placing diminished emphasis on certain aspects of policy. I think the question of the notability of this institution was brought here because policy does not seem to appropriately evaluate this institution for notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2013 (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.