Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Noble Sage Art 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Noble Sage Art Gallery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotion by a single-purpose account (User:Crisoli77), very likely in a conflict of interest. Does not meet notability in my eyes. bender235 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added some references. I don't think the article is unduly promotional. The phrase "Noble Sage" doesn't get any Google hits at telegraph.co.uk or timesonline.co.uk, and only this one at guardian.co.uk. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub. I think there's enough coverage for this to pass notability, but Wikipedia isn't the place for a directory of past events at a venue, unless all of the individual events are notable in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more coverage can be demonstrated. V. Anamika looks iffy too. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.