Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaLon 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. Sr 13 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SaLon Gallery[edit]

Speedy A7 was declined by admin User:Rklawton, who recommended AFD. Notability is not established. Conflict of interest is likely given the author's username, which also has no other edits. Yechiel Man 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, A7, no assertion of notability. Leuko 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article was originally listed as db-spam. I removed the spam bits. Notability is claimed via artist(s) represented. I thought it might be useful to give editors a chance to improve the article. If no such improvements are forthcoming, then count my vote as "delete", too. Rklawton 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assertions to notability are there as Rklawton says, and the press page on their website claims they've been reviewed by some guides and magazines which look like they might be reliable sources. Can't find any of them on the internet, but if these can be obtained as hard copies and used as references, I think it'd be keepable. - Zeibura^(talk) 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Delete per Victoriagirl's reasoning. - Zeibura^(talk) 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ORG, the primary criterion of which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I write this recognizing that the SaLon website claims that the gallery "has already appeared in the March 2006 editions of the Hill, Grove & Kult magazines, the October, November & December 2006 editions of Gallery Guide for Europe, the January 2007 edition of the Resident Magazine". This leaves the reader to wonder what is meant by "appeared"... a feature article, a profile, a column, a review, a listing, an ad? Really a non-issue, as the article itself doesn't attempt to provide such sources. Victoriagirl 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was me who nominated it for speedying. If you have to write your own article, then methinks you're not notable enough. Chris 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while this may be an indicator that problems may exist with the article, self-authorship is not a deletion criterion. Rklawton 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: True. But, this says "We also tend to discourage authors from writing about themselves or their own accomplishments, as this is a conflict of interest. If you have made notable accomplishments, someone else will write an article about you eventually." Chris 08:13, 19 June 2007 (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.