Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaver Hall Group

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaver Hall Group

Non-notable, '"Beaver Hall Group" montreal' on google results in 517 results. _→AzaToth 15:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable organization --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep many art organisations are not pervaisive in the media on purpose. This article should not be deleted simply on the argument of quantifiable google searches. Vanessa kelly 19:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, red link farm. Royboycrashfan 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, see here although I doubt seriously the individual artists need their own pages. --Deville (Talk) 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per my requirements. Give it ninety days. TKE 04:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Adam Bishop 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - somewhat notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TKE. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per TKE. Kukini 16:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I note that the article originator was blocked as a sockpuppet. Kukini 16:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, meets not notabilty or WP:WEB critera. JohnnyBGood 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The swing factor for me was notability in context; it's a small scene. Otherwise I agree with notability. TKE 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with WP:WEB? You haven't even read the article. Good job! Adam Bishop 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with WEB, it's just my personal decision on notability. I read the article, there are too many red links and that bothers me, but it's an artistic social circle which may or may not prove relevant, and we're not a crystal ball. However, many such art communes have ended up making lasting contributions to culture; that's my extended resoning. TKE 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now that the adress is to the delete vote, I apologize. But I like my expansion for reasoning, sorry for the confusion. TKE 05:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry, that was addressed to JohnnyBGood. However, you should re-read the article as well - this group existed in the 1920s. Adam Bishop 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they might have died off and lost notabilitiy; or maybe they're part of the Cabal :) TKE 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Samaritan 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable group in Canada's art history, at least two books have been written about them. See CBC article. Luigizanasi 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Luigizanasi. Skeezix1000 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Moe ε 02:05, 1 April 2006 (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.