Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for the Study of Traditional Pottery


 * 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 no consensus. There are Greek sources, but no one here is able to evaluate them. If someone is able to read them, they can either add the sources to the article or renominate it for deletion if they conclude that WP:SIGCOV is not met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Centre for the Study of Traditional Pottery

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

Unreferenced for 14 years. I tried searching with its 3 names and only got 1 gnews hit for the first name. Unless someone can find coverage in Greek, I'd reconsider. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Greece.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that notability is questionable to begin with, so without solid sources for so long I don't see much of a reason to keep. Ppt91 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Borderline G12 with copyvio present since 2009. If you stub it back to then, you're left with an A7, so not sure the best course of action here. Star   Mississippi  23:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non notable due to lack of sources available, and I agree with the issues raised by SM also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I used way back machine on the official website to find the name in Greek: "Κέντρο Μελέτης Νεώτερης Κεραμεικής". A search of that in Google books identified many sources, but I can't use google translate on them. I added what I could find, two passing mentioned and a very long piece written in collaboration with the subject. My perception is that it is notable, just not written about much in English, we really need someone who can read Greek to look at Google books. I favour not deleting, but I cannot say it meets WP:GNG, as I do not know. CT55555 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by CT55555, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I thought it was for traditional poetry, per Roseanne Roseannadanna. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Only 2 sources have been provided. Not sure if that's WP:HEY. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: I think this should not be deleted considering its historical significance. There are high chances of availability of offline sources.Thilsebatti (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning weak keep, for the exact reasons stated by @Thilsebatti and having seen books, but without the language skills to translate them. The existence of this article is a net positive to the encyclopaedia, despite significant coverage being unclear. CT55555 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.