Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldstein gallery


 * 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. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Goldstein gallery

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any claims of notability, nor any reason why it should be, but this doesn't quite fall under speedy deletion. Prod tag removed. Veinor (talk to me) 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be hosted by the University of Minnesota, and I'd be staggered if the text of this article was not a straight lift (read: copyvio) from an exhibition catalogue. No opinion on the subject, but the article is an unambiguous delete since there is pretty much nothing here that would survive cleanup. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This site is not hosted by the University of Minnesota or The Goldstein Gallery. I initiated this project. I am working with the collection of the Goldstein Gallery as a contract lecturer of History of Costume.

Most of the acquisitions of the Goldstein Gallery are not recorded in descriptive text, drawing or photograph in any published source. The published cataloge provides photographs of a few items and lists it's costume holdings at the time it was published about 20 years ago with short one-line descriptions. Since that publication hundreds of new items have been added to the collection. Therefore the majority of the Goldstein's holdings remain available only to those members of the costume history, clothing design, and theater costuming community who live in the vicinity or can afford to travel to St. Paul, Minnesota to see them.

Also, the Golstein Gallery continues to acquire new historic costume items every month. No traditional form of hard copy publication could keep up with the acquisitions to make the important popular culture history information embedded within those garments available to the public.

Since my upper division students perform 6 artifact analyses every year under professional suppervision, I thought that Wikipedia could serve as a venue for disseminating information on specific historic garments worn in the past in Minnesota and in the United States. Of particular interest are the garments that were produced and worn before the advent of mass production of apparel. This includes the majority of children's and women's wear in the 19th century, and more than three-quarters of men's wear in that era. Each item is a unique interpretation in its time of what was considered fashionable or appropriate dress. Individual clothing designers/seamstresses, whether home sewers or professional seamstresses and tailors, had great influence on how the people in an area dressed, so that for instance, people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota would be dressed slightly differently than people in nearby Des Moines, Iowa, because their clothing was designed and constructed by different people. Teh notability of this imformation lies in its specificity, i.e. detailed descriptions of actual garments, and in its uniqueness---each of these garments is a unique example of what it meant to be properly dressed in a specific time in history. An additional reason for using Wikidedia as a medium for disseminating this information has to do with the problem of dating the garments. Donors of the garments provide to the Goldstein Gallery the information that has been handed down through family oral history, but oral history has a tendency to collapse facts into smaller bundles of information that can generalize information. The process of dating a garments requires comparison with similar garments, or garments with similar details, of known date and provenance. Wikipedia provides a good venue for "debating" the dating of specific garments through the editing process. Individuals who have examined the garment in question can all contribute to the construction of the garments description in the Wikipedia article describing that garment.Lutz0013 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a discussion forum, or a webspace provider. An article on the Goldstein gallery should be about the gallery, not contain an exhaustive list of the garments inside of it. That information would be in an article about said garments, but I highly doubt they would be notable themselves. Notability is the main requirement for inclusion, along with verifiability, and I don't think that there are enough reliable sources about the Goldstein Gallery to make it notable. Veinor (talk to me) 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate for the artiface analysis portion of the article to be located within the 1860s costume history section of Wikipedia? Lutz0013 17:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure where to specifically address Guy's suggestion that the artifact analysis in this page is lifted from some catalogue. This is patently not true. The artifacts existence can be verified with the Goldstein Gallery and Museum curator. But it's description is only available from the students in my class who worked at describing and analysizing its probable dates of use. This is the kind and quality of work some of them will be doing on their jobs when they graduate at the end of the month. Dr. Hazel A. Lutz Lutz0013 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing original research, either, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if the original research is removed, can the Goldstein Gallery and Museum information be somehow attached to the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities page? It's located on the St. Paul portion of the Twin Cities (sometimes called Minneapolis) campus. 64.131.24.230 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might be possible to write a section about the Goldstein Gallery on the University of Minnesota page and to redirect Goldstein gallery to that section. Veinor (talk to me) 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless cleaned up. The whole thing's a mess, and it barely asserts notability, and it really does look like it was lifted from somewhere. Even if it wasn't, it would have to be almost completely rewritten, I'm afraid. (I went to the University of Minnesota for two years and lived in the Twin Cities my entire life and I've never heard of this. Then again, I've been to the St. Paul campus very few times...) Grand  master  ka  09:20, 30 April 2007 (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.