Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery Black Swan

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 17:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery Black Swan

• Delete Non-Notable Vanity Page created by user Daniel C.Boyer to promote his, "surrealist" friends as a means for advertising this gallery that is no longer in existence. The question of any historical relevance should be considered as well. Advertising and Spam for the, Surrealist Movement in the United States a commercial enterprise run by Daniel C.Boyer's friends.Classicjupiter2 20:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Comments on latest phase in Classicjupiter2's quest to purge all information on surrealism from Wikipedia: What would be the point of advertising a now-defunct gallery? Historical relevance (site of 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition, largest-ever surrealist exhibition) is stated in article. Saying the Surrealist Movement in the United States is a commercial enterprise is in my opinion a real stretch, but that's just my POV; at any rate, this POV could be stated in any relevant article but you do not explain in any way how this would make it a grounds for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Incoherent nomination. Advertising for a gallery that no longer exists? Yeah, right. --Gene_poole 00:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the Google hits on this gallery seem to refer back to Wikipedia's article on it. Hosted an exhibition with the word world in its name 30 years ago. Not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Inform yourself about 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition before dismissing it like this. Over five hundred works, almost all from active surrealists from thirty-one countries, the surrealist exhibition with the largest-ever scope, though I'm sure Classicjupiter2, for whatever reason, has already decided it is non-notable. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent nomination, but that doesn't make the subject notable. android↔talk 03:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Android. This is not a courthouse - if a procedure is messed up, that doesn't necessarily invalidate its result. Radiant_* 09:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but if it's significant, the article could sure do a better job of demonstrating it.-- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.