Deletion of Meessen De Clercq

Comment: I don't believe that {{tq|there can be exceptions to the }} is a valid argument in a deletion discussion. The sources either exist or they don't. The entity in question is a private, for-profit company and we need to be mindful of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROMO)

Comment: per nomination. Suject fails , never mind CORP. And socks never help the cause, folks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Our  policy says the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I would add that reviews of art shows are reviews of galleries provided the art show takes place ''in'' the art gallery or is under the auspices of the art gallery but taking place on other premises. This is the work of art galleries being taken note of by reliable sources. Many other factors would apply in ultimately determining notability but they tend to be more minor factors. But your basic argument that commentary in reliable sources of the art shows mounted by art galleries does not confer notability on art galleries is incorrect. How can you possibly argue that the work of an art gallery is |INHERITED from artists? Doesn't the gallery play a role in bringing the exhibition into existence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INHERIT)