Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Wing Framing 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wing Framing Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a total failure of notabiliy; what makes them any different from my local framing place? fr33kman -s- 05:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Author JBecker88 is probably proprietor John Becker or a family member, so fails WP:SPAM and WP:NOR. Most of the references included are to the company's own web site. Remaining references are mere mentions; they are about the exhibits, not the gallery itself. --Unconventional (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Update: The characterizations as spam/OR were unjustified, and I apologize. However, the article still fails notability. --Unconventional (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per fr33k Valley2city^‽ 09:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Include I am jbecker88 and I am not John Becker. WP:SPAM discusses Wikipedia:Spam and advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming. Neither apply to this entry. No sales language is used. It is simply a list of notable exhibits. The references have been tightened up considerably to remove all self-referring references and now includes independent critical art reviews.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbecker88 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is accusing the article of having been written in bad faith or as blatant advertising. We just don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's own notability requirements, spelled out at WP:CORP, and you have not addressed that concern. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the multiple sources appear to confer some weak notability. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2009 (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.