Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mica 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Mica Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An art gallery which seems to fail to meet the criteria of WP:NORG. The only source is an old business listing. My searches have come up with nothing better. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing found for the business. Scattered hits for things made of mica in galleries. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging you because I did find some, although the length and independence of what I found is borderline. CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (borderline) based on the sources presented by  Delete - an online WP:Before search revealed a few listings in databases, a statement by the owner of the gallery on why she started the gallery, and a review of an artist's work at the gallery (but notability is not inherited from the artists even if the artists they show are notable.) This is not enough to meet notability guidelines for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. If significant coverage can be found, I'm willing to change my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have since added coverage. If it is signifiant or independent is open to debate, but giving you this ping in case it is enough to sway your vote. CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I added some more refs (and looking into it made me think WP would benefit from better coverage of Islamic art in the UK).Dsp13 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good find on the Tribune Express one, that has me almost convinced, but it is the only one that provides any significant coverage on the gallery in a reliable source. If we could get one or 2 more like that one then it would change my mind. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems to be quite notable to Islamic art in the UK which is poorly covered. At worst merge into the road article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Notable islamic art in UK. Article can be updated further. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as one of the keep !votes said, this topic is poorly covered. As is this art gallery, so it fails to pass WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 00:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since new sources have been found and the article has been improved (by me) both other delete votes have switched to keep. Pinging you @Onel5969 in case these developments sway you. CT55555 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep. The gallery now has (I just edited it in) a clear claim of notability as the UK's first modern Islamic art gallery. A distinct lack of claim of notability was missing until I did that some minutes ago. Nonetheless, the question for us to answer is, does this pass WP:GNG (which is what WP:NORG calls for, as I see it). I have to vote weak because I consider the Guardian, the Express Tribune and the Islamic Arts pieces to scrape by GNG, but poorly due to the lack of independence as most of these sources (not the Guardian) rely on the gallery founder. The Guardian is independent, but the length of coverage is not great (but is enough, in my opinion). However, I also understand that any journalist writing about this small gallery is very likely to contact the gallery for a quote and that should not reduce the value of media coverage because they did so. CT55555 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with the new sources found, it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As others have said, there is just about enough now to justify an article. The gallery has been around since 2007, and the article itself has no history of promotional or COI editing, which is more than we can say for many such artciles on more prominent galleries. Edwardx (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As nominator I am now satisfied this does in fact now meet WP:GNG. I would close/withdraw nom if not for the outstanding delete stance. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (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.