Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmorack 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. Michig (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmorack 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)

Non-notable gallery lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless truly significant coverage is discovered. I see local listings of shows and listings in tour books mentioning that it is a beautiful place to visit. In my opinion, such coverage is insufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Un-notable gallery. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The coverage in The Scotsman is enough to establish notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a big gallery, but it does appear to be a notable example of a conversion/ reuse of a B-listed building, attracting artists to exhibit their work in a relatively rural location. Some coverage in national press. There has been some improvement of the article itself since the nomination was made. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - So let's look at the references attached to the article. 1) The first is close to only in-depth; 2) Only a very brief listing; 3) Only a brief listing; 4) Not even about the gallery - about the artists, Henry Fraser and David Cook; 5) Not about the gallery - about the original building; 6) A brief description of the new use of the building - not in-depth; 7) Only the briefest of mentions that the gallery exists, not in-depth. I don't see how this coverage is a non-trivial, in-depth collection of support for the gallery. The gallery fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial art galleries are there to exhibit art. Coverage of exhibitions is coverage of the gallery even when, as is usual, it talks mainly or entirely about the art. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Enough references for back the content. Can improve over time.--122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (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.