Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1708 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. Most of the arguments for keeping are not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whereas those for deletion are based on policies and guidelines. In addition, Ewillett72's contribution should be totally discounted, as that is a sockpuppet account. (Swimminginwords may or may not be connected to Ewillett72 via sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and assume not.) JBW (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1708 Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

local/regional group. Does not pass the requirements for WP:NONPROFIT. The page also looks like an about-us page. Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• note to closing admin see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Swimminginwords Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. Once you strip away the self-published sources and citations from related endeavors, what you have left is a handful of local newspapers talking about an exhibit at the gallery but not really the gallery, itself. I don't see a case for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEPSubject does not fail WP:GNG. Newspapers are relevant sources. Replying to an argument with a statement that an argument is not relevant but without giving reasons is in fact irrelevant. Please provide more information about how you find the article irrelevant and we can edit that page. This page is for historical information about a nonprofit art gallery. Please further explain how that does not fit in the wikipedia guidelines. Ewillett72 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC) — Ewillett72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please see WP:NCORP and WP:NONPROFIT. The AfD discussion is not a vote contest to ask people around if they think, in their own personal opinion, if a subject is notable. It is soliciting for input on notability based on their interpretation of relevant policies mentioned in the deletion nomination. Coverage in local media is valid as a reliable source of information, but local coverage rarely contributes to the establishment of notability for Wikipedia purpose. Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• note see User:Ewillett72's talk page; and the staff directory at the organization's page. Very good chance of editing on behalf of the organization, but user has not disclosed this. Graywalls (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To Graywalls (talk) Being "local" in Richmond is unlike being local elsewhere. Many members of 1708 Gallery have been affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University. Virginia Commonwealth University School of the Arts is one of the most--if sometimes only tying for THE MOST-- highly ranked art schools in the United States. Richmond is also home to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts which has art by members and exhibitors of 1708 in its permanent collection. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP 1708 Gallery has a long, outstanding history in Richmond, Virginia. Of course newspapers are important sources. 1708 gallery was one of the first incorporated 501C-3 member-run galleries in Richmond.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitzi.humphrey:, what does it do or receive notice in outside of the region? Per WP:NONPROFIT, the scale needs to be national/international in addition to meeting all the sourcing requirements. Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC) *The influence and reputation of 1708 and its artists is most assuredly international.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question @Mitzi.humphrey:, what is your connection, if any to the organization in which you're participating in deletion discussion about? It says in the article "In April 1990 in the original Shockoe Bottom location, with visiting artist-in-residence Louise Odes Neaderland, 1708 presented Art Ex Machina, National Copier Art Show, curated by Anne Savedge and Mitzi Humphrey." Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The 1708 Gallery Wikipedia page should not be deleted as it has a long and recognized history that transcends its regional contributions. The 1708 Gallery history archive was in the process of being digititized by the Virginia Commonwealth University Library of Special Collections before the pandemic hit. After Forty years of print articles and reviews from ar digitized it will be easier to access the many contributions of nationally and internationally noted artists as well as the gallery's role in contributing to the greater community at large. https://www.library.vcu.edu/swimminginwords (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Swimminginwords (talk) — Swimminginwords (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I am deeply sympathetic to the difficulties of documenting the history of artist-run institutions, particularly those who were started in the 1970s as some of the first. Often those histories are not written until the archives are made available for researchers. It is quite possible that such a history will one day be written. But here we have a number of editors who clearly have a conflict of interest. The article -is- promotional, the sourcing is very poor, and I find the argument thatBeing "local" in Richmond is unlike being local elsewhere staggeringly arrogant. If the editors of the article really think that, they have lost all perspective. Delete without prejudice to recreation by uninvolved editors once independent, reliable sources become available. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.