Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Structures (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Sandstein 07:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Structures

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

Article (movement or group?) fails WP:NOTABILITY, Has Inadequate references, no evidence of notability and what does exists seems to be press releases, unreliable references and self-promotional material like GlobalArtAffairs Publishing and Lodermeyer. Nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article contains links to magazines that cover the work associated with the Personal Structures group/forum/collective or however they wish to designate themselves. I've also found this which is more coverage. That seems to be enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As mentioned above those links are Inadequate, mere gallery press releases and self-promotional material are not reliable 3rd party coverage nor is the gallery press release link you provided above. Its all Promotional Marketing.[1], rather than reliable 3rd party coverage. Google news shows only one result which is a press release and scholar shows nothing that would adequetly establish notability. --Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to a more appropriate title. It is clear that this arrticle is about an artist-group and collective movement, the article title as it stands does not lend itself to searches for notability. The German link above is a reliable third party reference. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and disam title. Enuf independent coverage etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (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.