Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamont Gallery
ping|RoySmith}} I'm sorry the paragraph in ''The New York Times'' was disappointing, I didn't intend my description of it to be disingenuous. "Covered" does make it sound like they sent someone there, a better choice of word might have been reported or printed. I was trying to make two points with the ''NYT''. First, the gallery has been noticed outside New Hampshire, so the organization doesn't fail , which wasn't obvious from the sources already cited. Second, the ''NYT'' could be the starting point for a history section, something currently missing from the article. I did not mean to imply that the ''NYT'' alone established the gallery's notability.  tells us to use multiple sources when depth of coverage is not substantial, and the ''NYT'' could be one of those sources
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AUD||WP:ORGDEPTH (Wikipedia:Notability)