Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterAccess


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

InterAccess

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

Non-notable little Toronto art gallery. Fails WP:N. Article also has no references - thus fail WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * also, the article has a large amount of spammy material that was added by a user account named "Interaccess". The original article was much more stubby. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article as it stands is poor and unsourced, this in itself is not a reason for deletion. As an organization, InterAccess is notable, and hardly a "little" art gallery (I don't understand the point of that kind of wording in a deletion nomination). InterAccess is actually a pretty important art centre in the field of electronic art and has been around for 25 years. Google books and google scholar show notability. I'll try to give it some time to properly source this. I've removed some PR language myself in the past and this could use a good thorough editing, but I think notability is easily shown here.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to withdraw my nom if the article's facts get sourced per WP:RS and notability gets demonstrated. But I browsed through the Google Scholar results, and most seem either unrelated or only mention InterAccess in passing, as a place where an exhibition was made. Also, I look forward in this AfD to learn how many, and what kind of, scholarly articles are needed to demonstrate notability: J Mann's article in Leonardo might be about Interaccess in more than passing (I haven't read it yet, dunno if my Uni library provides access to that journal), but does that count as significant scholarly attention? I'll leave it up to others to decide. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I do feel the need to point to Articles_for_deletion/Open_House_Arts_Collective, an article I !voted to delete. InterAccess, with 25 years and an important place in the history of electronic arts certainly has as much business being here as a small local arts collective in London, Ontario. If we cannot accept academic and other print sources which are a primarily about the exhibition rather than the exhibition space, we'd pretty much need to go through Wikipedia deleting gallery pages, as art galleries tend to be, in essence, a space for exhibiting and in most cases there would be very little written about a gallery that is not primarily about a given show. In any case, as an artist-run centre (as opposed to a commercial art gallery), InterAccess' programming is an important aspect of the central mission of the organization. In other words, the programming (and the associated press and academic articles) are very much about the organization. I feel there is enough to satisfy notability, and as I've said, I'll be working on this when I get some spare time, rewriting and adding sources.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Food for thought: if all sources only mention InterAccess as a place where an artist exhibited, that would be all that could be written about the place per WP:V. Also, if InterAccess is only mentioned as a place where an artist's works are exhibited, what then is making it notable? E.g., notability is not inherited, so the artist's exhibition isn't contributing to notability of the gallery. It'd be nice to just see a couple articles about the gallery itself used for sources - if it's as you say, there should be some articles demonstrating notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An artist's exhibition isn't inherited notability for the gallery, as it is the prime function of the gallery. It is the gallery's exhibition. There are numerous galleries, artists and shows, most of whom do not get much coverage. If a gallery's shows recurrently get written about, that is a testament to the importance of the gallery. The cumulative account of shows is the gallery's history. Even well-known galleries do not get much coverage directed specifically at them in isolation: it usually occurs in the context of a show.  Ty  01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Galleries which do not get much coverage fail WP:V, as the article content is supposed to be sourced from this coverage. If a gallery only receives coverage for its exhibitions, then one has to wonder what's passing WP:N - the gallery, or the artists exhibiting at it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Tyrenius basically said what I was trying to say above, although much more clearly. In the end the notability of the exhibitions and the notability of the gallery are the same thing. I've expanded the article somewhat, added some sources, removed some more of the more promotional language and removed things that are difficult to substantiate. I think what's left shows notability. This could be expanded further, but it will take someone with a bit more knowledge of electronic arts than I have. But as it stands, I'm confident that this is salvageable.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be salvageable, I agree. My biggest concern is the non-independence of the sources that came up in the google search, as I said above. I still should see if that Mann article mentions InterAccess more than just in passing, as that might be an independent source. I still have a problem with sources associated with the artists who exhibit at the gallery, as that has the great potential to give us a walled garden - the Schilling article, for example, is written by a friend of the curator of the gallery! Art scenes can be rather consanguinous, and in Canada they have the added benefit of government grants to support their self-promotion. That's why Wikipedia requires independent sources - if we didn't we may as well close up shop and fold the site into Facebook. :-) I'll leave my vote as is, and leave it up to other editors to hash out whether this is notable or not. I think this AfD is going to get arelist anyway, as really there haven't been enough contributions yet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant whether a writer is a friend of the curator of the gallery. He would only not be independent if he were an agent of the gallery, i.e. in a commercial contractual relationship. Additionally, the publisher of the material takes responsibility for endorsing its content, and there is no suggestion that the publisher is an agent of the gallery, i.e. paid by it. WP:WALL is also irrelevant, as the links are to outside sources, not just within a circle of wikipedia-only articles. A government grant would be a help for notability as it is recognition by an established independent source.  Ty  03:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the Canadian art community is small, and this of course actually means that writers will be writing about artists they know. But Baudelaire was buds with Manet, so this is nothing new. And given the cultural population in Canada, this is unavoidable (there would basically be no way to get any coverage otherwise). And likewise, I'm not certain what government funding has to do with anything. Europeans fund art much more generously than Canada, so the idea that government support somehow taints the work or gives it an unfair advantage is specious. The Schilling article, regardless of what the relationships may be, was used simply to verify information on the 25th anniversary exhibition. I don't believe any actual assessment of the work was gleaned from the review for this article. In any case, the publication Parachute is in no way affiliated with InterAccess and is entirely independent and third-party. The Mann article is in fact about InterAccess specifically. An online version is not available outside of academic databases. I'd be happy to send a PDF to anyone who's interested.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And per Tyrenius above, there seem to be many reviews and articles on the exhibitions of InterAccess published in independent sources (magazines and major newspapers). In order to include these, a section on exhibitions would need to be added (although a "further reading" section could be used for article not specifically referred to, although I personally prefer to use those sparingly).  freshacconci  talk talk  22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Freshacconci above...Modernist (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep — there are many references demonstrating notability. This should have had a or similar added if needed, not an AfD. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussions here to date.  Ty  01:02, 15 July 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.