- 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. Sandstein 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- FemLink-Art ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Cmjudge (creator) who expanded it a bit more and left some arguments on talk ( Talk:FemLink-Art). Sadly, the refs are still far from sufficient to show this organization has received in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources, and the argument boils down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT. This is not sufficient to warrant being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The references actually look pretty good, but I'd really like to have links to them so that I wouldn't have to go and look each one up in JSTOR or Muse or wherever they came from. The article needs a lot of work, though. :/ Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a very notable group of artists, who have done multiple exhibitions in multiple countries, and for which there are multiple references. There is no requirement that references can be checked online, and in fact, information that comes from non-online sources are in some ways more valuable for Wikipedia, since it makes it more widely available. What would be nice is to know what piece of information comes from which of the listed references. Martinogk ( talk) 10:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for failing WP:ORG. The "list" of purported references speak toward some of the artists but not about the organization itself in any significant manner. There are some non-English news sources available, but per WP:INHERIT any notability toward artists or venues (most WITHOUT articles) is not that of this organization. If its author Cmjudge (likely the organizations's founder C. M. Judge) wishes to have it back for work to bring in under WP:MOS I would say it can be worked on... but away from article space and with the understanding of WP:COI and WP:NAY. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for now as there's simply nothing convincing information and sources-wise. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sandstein 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- FemLink-Art ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Cmjudge (creator) who expanded it a bit more and left some arguments on talk ( Talk:FemLink-Art). Sadly, the refs are still far from sufficient to show this organization has received in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources, and the argument boils down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT. This is not sufficient to warrant being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The references actually look pretty good, but I'd really like to have links to them so that I wouldn't have to go and look each one up in JSTOR or Muse or wherever they came from. The article needs a lot of work, though. :/ Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a very notable group of artists, who have done multiple exhibitions in multiple countries, and for which there are multiple references. There is no requirement that references can be checked online, and in fact, information that comes from non-online sources are in some ways more valuable for Wikipedia, since it makes it more widely available. What would be nice is to know what piece of information comes from which of the listed references. Martinogk ( talk) 10:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for failing WP:ORG. The "list" of purported references speak toward some of the artists but not about the organization itself in any significant manner. There are some non-English news sources available, but per WP:INHERIT any notability toward artists or venues (most WITHOUT articles) is not that of this organization. If its author Cmjudge (likely the organizations's founder C. M. Judge) wishes to have it back for work to bring in under WP:MOS I would say it can be worked on... but away from article space and with the understanding of WP:COI and WP:NAY. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for now as there's simply nothing convincing information and sources-wise. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.