Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanity 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 KEEP. Herostratus 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity gallery

After seeing the deletion log and a speedy delete didn't work the first time around, figure giving this a go. (clears throat). Anyways, the reason why I am nominating this for deletion is this is a list of places that charge money. We are not a travel directory of this kind of information. The other pressing matters is that the only source for the information is a blog post, which is generally not considered a good source to use on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the list, as unreferenced and potentially libellous but all we're left with is a dicdef, with the real danger of the list reappearing. So best delete.--Doc^g 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - until the article is something more than a dicdef and is referenced. No article better than bad article, and so on. Apart from the the fact that if any of those listed as vanity galleries (unreferenced, of course), were not vanity galleries, there'd be hell to pay. Moreschi ^Talk 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article cannot be more than a dicdef if it is deleted. It needs time to develop. I'm afraid I don't agree that "no article is better than a bad article". The list of galleries has been removed. The concept of a vanity gallery, like that of a vanity press, is notable. It is discussed in this reliable source, along with books like How to Survive and Prosper as an Artist, 5th ed.: Selling Yourself Without Selling Your Soul (Caroll Michaels, Owl Books 2001) and The Artist's Guide to New Markets: Opportunities to Show and Sell Art Beyond Galleries (Peggy Hadden, Allworth Press, 1998), among others. I believe the former could be used as a source for a set of examples, if necessary. JulesH 07:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have rewritten the article from sources. The blog used as a source originally has been retained, as the blog's author is a professional art critic, therefore I consider it a reliable source. JulesH 07:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been rewritten and nicely explains the concept. --JJay 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep good re-write. Please watch to prevent the list re-appearing -Doc^g 23:13, 9 June 2007 (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.