Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zillah Bell Contemporary Art


 * 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. David Fuchs ( talk ) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zillah Bell Contemporary Art

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was tagged for speedy with suggestion no indication of notability. Given links to other notable artists who have exhibited there I feel this article requires more discussion in an open forum if deletion is to occur. -- VS talk 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I added the speedy tag. I can't find any evidence that this local, commercial gallery is notable. The only coverage I can find in secondary sources (per WP:ORG) are two exhibition reviews on the BBC North Yorkshire website:, . This limited coverage in the local media is not sufficient to justify a wiki article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we keep it as a stub, if you look at the early (2005) version of the article on the Saatchi Gallery, which is a great article on a contemporary art gallery now, you will find the information on it and references to it in 2005, were originally not much better than the Zillah Bell gallery stub is now. It just needs development ..just because it is not a London based gallery, that doesnt mean it isnt 'notable' - keep in mind the artists who have exhibited there and you will begin to see its importance in promoting Art and fostering new talent ..  keep an open mind Pamela Gardiner (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Yorkshire has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a reasonable amount of coverage in the local paper as well as an article in the regional paper the Yorkshire Post. I think these, combined with the BBC exhibition reviews,  show enough to coverage to fulfil the nility criteria in WP:ORG.  --Kaly99 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as seems to be notable as it is a listed building and has independant references. Though, if kept, I would line up article title and lead sentence. Keith D (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - there appears to be enough sources to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (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.