Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autopsia


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Autopsia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Theatre, Czech Republic, Serbia,  and England. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 03:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a tough one, since the project has been "mysterious by design", and over the course of almost 40 years built an impressive opus and accrued a walled garden scene of public, critics and venues. On to the available sources out there:
 * An excerpt from a limited-circulation monograph about the project.
 * – an exhibition announcement
 * – an exhibition announcement
 * – reprint of 1988 interview for Delo (newspaper)
 * – overview of the project
 * While I grant that the sources are a tad obscure, they're par for the course for the group's profile. I would hate to lose an article about an important (sub)cultural phenomenon because of The Rules. And here's the right time to WP:IAR. No such user (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, the article needs to be expanded to explain better what it is, and as usual, better referenced. If you are familiar with this project, you should improve it! Jdcooper (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup and should not be used to coerce users into doing anything on an entirely volunteer project. I haven't evaluated the sources, but most appear to be fine on a surface level. All we need to establish notability (which is the sole issue raised by the nominator) is to determine that sources that meet WP:GNG exist. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that, it was not intended as coercion, merely a suggestion/invitation, as it sounds like this could be an interesting article. Jdcooper (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that, it was not intended as coercion, merely a suggestion/invitation, as it sounds like this could be an interesting article. Jdcooper (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Seeking more opinions on the sources provided. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by, which meet the bare minimum requirements. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep As per findings of No such user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheronthemove (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article could certainly stand to be improved, I find that the subject does indeed satisfy WP:GNG by the depth of coverage in WP:RS. Shawn Teller (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2023 (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.