Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APT Institute


 * 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 and redirect to Artist Pension Trust. Daniel (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

APT Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional advert by possible paid editor about a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Either this article or Artist Pension Trust should go, since the articles duplicate one another in large part. I would say delete here because its notability is due to the money and holdings documented in the other article. If this article is notable (the "institute" of holding art), then that article needs to merge to it, since it is only the retirement fund that makes this one possible. There are definite monkeyshines involved here. Deletion is justified partly on promotional grounds, but mainly this is duplication (again). I would imagine a paid writer would duplicate as much as possible. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'd support deleting this, and redirecting it to Artist Pension Trust (which already has information about it). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, and just to be clear, in case the above was "tl;cr": delete this article. I'm not sure a redirect is necessary, but the reliable sources in this article all talk about how the Artist Pension Trust has a pile of money and art, not so much anything about the institute. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment User:BiH has a declared COI for this article, which is proper. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  15:23, 2 July 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.