Talk:Spectrum London

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Contemporary Art (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Contemporary ArtWikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary ArtTemplate:WikiProject Contemporary ArtContemporary Art articles

Untitled[edit]

I'd propose that the gallery itself is incidental to the controversy, which should probably be the article subject. The gallery is mentioned as an afterthought in one of the references, and not at all in the other. It didn't seem notable enough to be the subject of an article. --Steve 05:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. There is quite enough to justify a stub. Furthermore, the gallery has had previous publicity and exhibits other artists of note also. The gallery is cited in a number of articles regarding this particular show. The gallery director has spoken out and been quoted in the press regarding it. Galleries are notable because of what they engender. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles on any art galleries — we'd just have articles on the artists they exhibit or the paintings they show. Tyrenius 05:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You marked it as G11 "blatant advertising". You're now saying it's "not notable" which is A7 and not the category it is marked as for a speedy. Do you still want to go ahead with the CSD, which of course I dispute or I wouldn't have made a stub in the first place? If you do, what criterion are you using? Thanks. Tyrenius 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatant advertising for a non-notable entity. --Steve 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A7 is for articles that do not assert notability. This quite obviously asserts it, even if you disagree with it. It's not "blatant advertising" because it has referenced content of public interest. It does not make any particular promotional claims for the subject and it not written in an advertising manner. The CSD is quite unmerited. Tyrenius 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spectrum London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061221064418/http://www.spectrumlondon.co.uk/new/stuckists.htm to http://www.spectrumlondon.co.uk/new/stuckists.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spectrum London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]