Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Gallina

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gallina

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not demonstrate notability. Has no independent reliable sources. Only 1 exhibition listed, which was not in a notable location (a hotel), for which 2 of the 3 sources are for, one of them being a primary source. The only other source is a primary source for membership of the industry body the British Press Photographers Association. The article's claim of "one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo had seen" is not credible, written slightly out of context and sourced to a non-reliable source. A quick web search does not give cause to believe the subject satisfies WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Lopifalko (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's Gallery 21. I hadn't heard of it, but it's an actual gallery, as we can see here. I think that "not in a notable location (a hotel)" (in the nomination above) is overly dismissive: it's not as if the works were displayed in an elevator hall. That said, "literally making it one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo had seen"? Why haven't I (in Tokyo) heard of this? I clicked on the reference, and read that "some [prints] measure over 3x2m, making for one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo has seen". So at the least, quotation marks are needed. In terms of surface area, perhaps this was indeed one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo had seen. After all, wall space in central Tokyo isn't cheap, helping to make Tokyo's major exhibition spaces largely immune to the fashion elsewhere for print gigantism; while there's a lot more space in Daiba=Odaiba, on reclaimed land to the south. No matter where it took place -- and (O)daiba was (is still?) a trendy place -- did this large exhibition make some impact? If it did, this isn't obvious. I presume that Gallina's name would have been Japanized as ピーター・ガリーナ or ピーター・ガリナ; but a search in Google for the latter brings nothing while one for the former brings a tiny number of mentions in blogs, on Facebook, etc, but nothing of significance (other than for Peter+Galina). So all in all, notability in Japan(ese) is not apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability (in the Wikipedia sense). - Hoary (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE - this is a run of the mill artist with a single documented gallery show. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2019 (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.