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. W.marsh 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notabililty concerns. There are lots of small art galleries in the world. Unsure whether this particular gallery is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even the 2004 coverage of Stella Vine didn't produce "a significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" as WP:ORG. I prodded two other articles yesterday, Ariel Gallery and Stride Gallery, for the same reason. --Mereda 08:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite clearly an advertising puff for a small rather insignificant gallery in London's East End. It does not represent a store of knowledge of any kind.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.1.226 (talk • contribs)
First and only edit by anon account. Tyrenius 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a major problem with applying the definition from WP:ORG quoted above to art galleries, which is that even major commercial galleries do not usually command such coverage. The coverage is given to the artists who exhibit in them, and this is the means by which the gallery achieves its reputation (e.g. Daily Telegraph). The fact that Stella Vine was exhibited and discovered by Charles Saatchi in Transition and has subsequently gone on to achieve an international reputation and ongoing media coverage is enough to make the gallery itself of enduring interest. Anyone reading about Vine may well want further information on this initial event and its context. Failure to provide it will be disappointing. Additionally Vine had her first solo show there, has continued to exhibit in group shows and is scheduled for a further solo show in May 2007. An rare example of critics focusing on the galleries rather than the artists is in The Evening Standard, where only 4 galleries were singled out, one of them Transition. There are in addition other blue link artists listed for the gallery, and others bought and shown by Saatchi such as Liz Neal again referencing Transition. The bottom line is that it has sufficient repute and position in contemporary art to merit an article. Tyrenius 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Tyrenius, you have me confused. first you write half the article, then you sponsor (?I think) & vote for deletion, then you give a spiel for keeping. Like JFK, I am on this occasion prepared to follow the last opinion i heard, so narrowly go for KEEP. Johnbod 02:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, i see now you were only commenting on the other vote. Still KEEP Johnbod 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I have now clarified by adding anon IP address to the unsigned comment. Tyrenius 01:04, 17 November 2006 (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.