Talk:Spectrum London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd propose that the gallery itself is incidental to the controversy, which should probably be the article subject. The gallery is mentioned as an afterthought in one of the references, and not at all in the other. It didn't seem notable enough to be the subject of an article. --Steve 05:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There is quite enough to justify a stub. Furthermore, the gallery has had previous publicity and exhibits other artists of note also. The gallery is cited in a number of articles regarding this particular show. The gallery director has spoken out and been quoted in the press regarding it. Galleries are notable because of what they engender. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles on any art galleries — we'd just have articles on the artists they exhibit or the paintings they show. Tyrenius 05:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You marked it as G11 "blatant advertising". You're now saying it's "not notable" which is A7 and not the category it is marked as for a speedy. Do you still want to go ahead with the CSD, which of course I dispute or I wouldn't have made a stub in the first place? If you do, what criterion are you using? Thanks. Tyrenius 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's blatant advertising for a non-notable entity. --Steve 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A7 is for articles that do not assert notability. This quite obviously asserts it, even if you disagree with it. It's not "blatant advertising" because it has referenced content of public interest. It does not make any particular promotional claims for the subject and it not written in an advertising manner. The CSD is quite unmerited. Tyrenius 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)