Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Orbit Gallery Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Orbit_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. Keep arguments indicate there is sufficient coverage, but as those have not been used in the article, it does reduce their position. The jury is out at the moment. Tyrenius (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Orbit Gallery

There is some news coverage about events it hosts, but nothing to indicate it's more notable than any other gallery or meets WP:CORP Travellingcari (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jlrich (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A gallery becomes notable by having notable exhibits, which I think this one does. The articles from the Buffalo News mentioned by the nominator seem to add up to enough coverage to pass WP:CORP. I added some categories. --Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable from VA side. Local press coverage not enough. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:CORP by virtue of the newspaper coverage, which is fairly extensive. A few of the newspaper articles (Natalie Green Tessier. "Humor, Creativity in Big Orbit". The Buffalo News. March 27, 2001) are actually about the place as a whole, and not just reviews of specific exhibits passing through. I agree that most of the coverage comes from the Buffalo area, but a quick Newsbank search reveals that the place has also been mentioned in the New Haven Register the Toronto Star, and the Boston Globe. Notable enough for me; we don't hurt anyone by having too much info on the arts. Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A real gallery, 16 years old, with a website. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an Art gallery that has a Music venue, that sounds notable. Hosting more than one notable preformer also lends credence to the pedigree. Better references are highly encouraged. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, appears to have several notable aspects making it worthwhile for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As it is the article is just a directory listing. The article falls short of WP:CORP. I think we should follow the guidelines here, i.e. getting beyond "Trivial or incidental coverage". Wikpedia doesn't cover everything and this may be one of the things it doesn't cover, regardless of WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (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.