Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemphill Fine Arts

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. Missvain (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemphill Fine Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This longstanding unreferenced article was recently moved to draft but, as per recent consensus on Draftification it is more appropriate to resolve its future using this process. I have added a couple of items of local media coverage as references, and can also find passing mentions relative to works exhibited at the Gallery, but my searches are not finding the level of substantial coverage about the Gallery itself which would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the hyper-local coverage show here is not enough to indicate anything is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnpacklambert, Just added a non-regional source. I realize it's the Washington Post, but I think that paper is read outside Washington. I read it, and I don't even live in the US. Vexations (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case it is still a local source. If you could find mention in a source outside DC that would work, but a DC paper is never going to be non-local on a DC event. We have gone over this for the New York Times a huge number of times, and just because a paper is a major one does not make ever mention in it major, or negate the fact it has a local circulation area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  the washing post has a local section, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ this was published in the /lifestyle section. Also, noting that Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) was a failed proposal. What policy are you basing this on, WP:AUD? I think that works in the WP's favor in this context.Vexations (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a single article in a national newspaper is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2020 (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.