Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Castillo


 * 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   keep. Given the suggestions below, I will boldly move the article to David Castillo Gallery as the content centers more around the Gallery's notability. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

David Castillo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Overly promotional, written partly in the first person (author most likely has a COI). I have concerns about his notability (WP:NOTABILITY), and I think the coverage in the sources the author has provided is borderline. Claritas (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It is written terribly also. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The David Castillo Gallery is well known, so the only question is whether that should be the article title (probably). There are quite ample sources in Google News, including the Miami Herald and The New York Times, and 18,500 Google hits. Galleries attract attention for their activities, which are usually the jury-selected art fairs where they are included (notable ones such as the Armory Show in this case) and the shows they stage, e.g. "Wynwood Wonder at the David Castillo Gallery". I note the article creator has taken steps to improve the article since the nom. COI is of course not a reason to delete. The "promotional" material (various accolades) is cited to sources, so valid, and thereby testifying to notability.  Ty  22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Tyrenius. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2010 (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.