Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts Engine


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 14:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Arts Engine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

As I read through the article, I am noticing a lot of unambiguous advertisement. The article is not worded very well, and there are no references in the article.  Ce ra don  talk contribs   20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - remember that the criterion isn't that the article is well written (a matter for editing), nor even that it's well sourced, but that good sources exist so the article can be brought up to standard. The article is certainly a bit scrappy right now - it has a long editing history, and refs are badly needed, but sources do exist. Some of them seem to be quite substantial:
 * Studio Daily, 2006
 * Creative Planet
 * Media that Matters Film Festival (video) 2008
 * PBS (bio of Katy Chevigny) 2008
 * Documentaries, 2010 (with poster we could use)
 * NYTimes, 2004 (brief mention)

... and there are certainly more sources out there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This article seems to have served a purpose for over 5 years now. During that time, it does seem odd that this has not come up before given the references are external links. This article needs a good comb through it to become anything worth note. keystoneridin! (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NRVE. Chiswick Chap is correct. The article's current state presents issues that are adressable through regular editing and use of available sources. I do understand the nom's worries, but he might take a look at WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE.  We generally do not delete notable topics that simply need some editorial attention, even if they have been suffering from a lack of that editorial attention. See WP:DEL, WP:DEL, WP:ATD, and the essays WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE and per WP:NRVE. Cavarrone (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2012 (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.