Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Rubenstein 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perry Rubenstein Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

An art gallery with no notability enough to warrant an article. Also, it has temporal covergage by the Los Angeles Times, but it is not enough (as i sad before) to warrant inclusion. I've additionaly found several additional sources fron both LA Times and others:, , , but i'm not convinced. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  06:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not  convinced either that the short reports about the opening assert notability per WP:ORG of something that still  has to  establish itself in society as being  something  special  or important enoough  for an encyclopediac entry. I had spent  some time cleaning  the spam and trivia out  of the article, and actually hesitated over PRODing  it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is pure WP:ADVERT.  Also:  WP:NOTADIRECTORY.  The article has no place here.  We are not a free web hosting service for non-notable businesses and their promoters. Qworty (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The new deluge of improperly formatted references seem to be primarily for exhibitions at Perry Rubenstein Gallery NYC. Notability_(companies_and_corporations) heather walls (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - and notability is  not inherited from the artists they have exhibited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)


 * Keep This is a notable gallery similar to Gagosian Gallery. There has been significant coverage of the gallery in reliable, independent sources. References to New York Times, LA Times, and LA Weekly. Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY "historically significant program lists" are okay for inclusion. ak3914a (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC) - Note: — ak3914a (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although you may indeed say it received coverage from reliable sources, such coverage has been purely incidental and does not represent notability at all. Why the Gallery is notable? Which is in it? What has happened with it? Which is the importance it holds inside the medium on which it is placed? It has any of those parameters? My guess it's no. — ΛΧΣ  21™  02:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, incidental. Nice try with all  the references (getting  more promotional  by  the minute), but again notability  is not  inherited from exhibition  press releases and artist reviews. Likewise the misinterpretation  of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There seems to be a lot of news coverage for artist's debut, first US showing, "It was first shown at," "made his New York City debut at" etc. at the Perry Rubenstein Gallery. Maybe I'm dazzled by the workings of a popular gallery, but I think there is something important about that information and the Perry Rubenstein Gallery's roll in such art history. Wikipedia seems a good place to convey such information. If you count that information, I think the topic meets WP:GNG. (I think if the information now in the article were written in a prose format rather than a trivia bulleted format in the article, you'd probably get more Wikipedian's agreeing to keep the article.) As for writings about the Perry Rubenstein Gallery topic, there really isn't much: New York Times May 13, 2007, ArtsBeat May 7, 2012, Los Angeles Times June 26, 2012. Early references to the topic include Chicago Tribune June 27, 2004, New York Times October 29, 2004, Artforum December 1, 2004. If you don't count the debut's, etc. at the gallery, then the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Still doesn't take into  account the fact  that  notability  is not  inherited from  the people who  have exhibited there. I  can think  of at  least  a dozen prominent  galleries in  Berlin, for example, who  have been in  existence for decades, are world scale art dealers of Old Masters and very  famous contemporary  artists, but  the shop  hasn't  got a Wikipedia page. To  meet GNG this gallery  needs some dedicated articles in  the established press that demonstrate that  it  has contributed significantly  to  developments in  the art world. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 07:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2012 (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.