Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic inquiry


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Artistic inquiry

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I cannot find anything to suggest the subject is notable. Hammer1980 ·talk 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom.scope_creep (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of scholar hits (sorry DGG, thompson is down); all relatively old, but this doesn't seem like a made-up term. --- tqbf  21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I, too, found lots of hits, but the vast majority merely involve this short phrase as it might occur in any casual conversation or writing, not some specific concept worthy of an article. Not much notability, if any. Tim Ross ·talk  17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what seems to be a book on it, cited by at least one Springer-Verlag journal (there's a Journal of Dance Therapy?!). --- tqbf  18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the theory behind my "keep" is that a standard less rigorous than WP:PROF could apply to a short, balanced article about a bona fide research area. Clearly if we were debating keeping an article about Lenore Hervey, this subject would fall far short of WP:N.  --- tqbf  19:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does not establish the notability requirement. Mikemill (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2007 (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.