Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piran Coastal Galleries


 * 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. Nominator withdrew, sole delete opinion reconsidered. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Piran Coastal Galleries

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While this gallery exists, I could not find substantial non-trivial RS coverage. Zero refs, for which it has been tagged for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, I can find some non-trivial coverage using google search, however, most is in Slovene. The article, regretfully, is in an awful shape. --Tone 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete zero google news hits, limited google book hits (and those are only directory entries), google search brings up unremarkable directory entries as well. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient reliable sources have been located to adequately source this article, I'm changing my !vote to keep with the assumption that those who have found those sources will improve this article with them.--RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The site of Slovenia's Ministry of Culture has this text "Since their founding a range of well-received exhibitions prepared by the Coastal Galleries have had a major influence on the visual arts scene, not only in the coastal region but also in the rest of Slovenia" which is at least some claim to notability. AllyD (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, Culture.si is a reliable source and, in my opinion, sufficient for the claim of notability. Slovene sources could also help, there's no obstacle to adding those. — Yerpo Eh? 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still not clear what the claim of notability is here. --RadioFan (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The galleries have hosted exhibitions of top artists, such as Zoran Mušič. The A+A Gallery, one of the Galleries, participates at the Venice Biennale. I think those two reasons should suffice. --Tone 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that meet either our general notability criteria as reflected in GNG, or any other accepted wp notability criteria? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It generates a significant coverage, the first point of the GNG. As said, sources exist, they just need to be incorporated into the article. --Tone 08:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We need substantial, non-trivial coverage/discussion of the galleries themselves in RSs. Mentions of gallery exhibitions that are passing in nature, for example, will not confer notability.  Furthermore, notability is not inherited -- An organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it -- if the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable.  And I'm not sure about what the participation is of the A+A Gallery at the Venice Bienielle ... I could not find mention of it when I did a search on the VB site.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a substantial, non-trivial coverage/discussion of the galleries themselves in an RS. The reference has been included in the article and was mentioned in the AllyD's comment just before mine. Do you disagree with that? A quick internet search also reveals a museums.si entry, and the coverage of an award presented by this institution in a national newspaper. — Yerpo Eh? 14:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

being a govt resource gives culture.si some credibility but the link above is essentially a directory entry and doesn't cover the subject in much detail. Official sites which are there to promote tourism are great for verifying details in the articles, but they aren't that helpful in determining notability as they tend to be indiscriminate in their inclusion policies.
 * Keep - notable enough. --Eleassar my talk 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment can you elaborate on how you feel this subject meets notability guidelines? WP:JUSTAVOTE !votes tend to get passed over by closing admins, especially when other voters (on both sides of the issue) have detailed arguments, most with links.--RadioFan (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", listed above and elsewhere. For example, this article describes the institution as being among the four most recognizable galleries in Slovenia and being the only such institution in Slovenia that has an outpost abroad. Istrian Encyclopedia also contains an article on the institution,, describing it as the central gallery institution in the Slovenian Littoral. Its notability is also explained in this article (pg. 30). --Eleassar my talk 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Note that many websites have this gallery listed as " Obalne Galerije Piran ". Reference searches under this name may yield more reliable sources. Also note that, per the article, there are galleries in Koper, Slovenia and Venice, Italy. Searches for Italian sources under the name " Gallerie Costiere Pirano " may be fruitful. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, this could be good info. Instead of leaving it for others, could you go ahead and share what you found when you used these as searchs and how you think they might help this article meet notability guidelines?--RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is volunteer driven, perhaps you could try some searches yourself, rather than suggesting what others should do to counter your !vote to delete this article. Instead of taking time to type suggestions about what other users should do, perhaps consider using that time instead to do some source searching! Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NA -- you are, as usual, doing an exemplary job here. Which is appreciated.  You are of course correct that wp is volunteer-driven, and that you didn't have to help by responding to RF's request.  You could have simply left it with your indication of the alternate names we weren't aware of, which was a great help.  I thank you for taking it even a step further.  At the same time, I'm guessing that RF wasn't trying to tweak you, or to irritate you, or to suggest that you were required to do anything ... but just making a good faith request, which you were free to satisfy or ignore.  I've seem my share of rudeness by an editor or two this week, but I at least didn't read into RF's request what you may have.  Best, and thanks once more.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RadioFan's comment wasn't interpreted by me as rude whatsoever. My replying comment was simply a suggestion. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahah -- sorry for the misunderstanding. It can happen at times, when one reads the words, but can't see the writer's expression (or the implied smiley face).  RF, from what I've seen, and even from his comments in his !vote above, does do a good job searching for sources as a general matter, and I respect both of you greatly, and just wanted to make sure there wasn't any disconnect.  Happy new year.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources:
 * (Slovenian)
 * (Slovenian)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw. Per new spelling, and new sources under it, found by NA.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 8 January 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.