Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brame & Lorenceau 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11, with no prejudice to recreation from the current draft. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Brame & Lorenceau Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is some notability for this gallery, but in it's current form it looks like an advertisement for a business with almost not references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per WP:TNT. The article is quite promotional, but I'm also concerned about it having been copied from the frwiki article, fr:Galerie Brame & Lorenceau, which was created as a copyvio, blanked, recreated, and modified, but still looks to retain a good amount of the same text, in addition to being poorly sourced and promotional. That said, it seems notable, so I created Draft:Brame & Lorenceau Gallery, very much a stub, starting from scratch (i.e. used none of the existing content). If this is kept, we can delete the draft of course, but the draft exists as a substitute if the content here is unusable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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.