Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluxus at Rutgers University (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Mduvekot (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fluxus at Rutgers University
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable intersection of topics, most of the subject matter is incidental Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep this is a pretty key part of the history of Fluxus. The article just has almost no citations, and should be better cited. I just dropped two museum shows, and one NYT article, which should pretty clearly establish notability. Those were just the first three results in google.... so there's a lot more there. --Theredproject (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. I randomly picked three claims in the article, and was able to add a reliable source for each, with ease. Lots of sources out there. 198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable art movement.Djflem (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources already in the article (e.g. from The New York Times about Fluxus in New Brunswick) and other sources in articles and books available online, which are in depth and on topic, all demonstrate that this is indeed a notable intersection. I had no trouble finding the sources using a tool called "Google" and offer my thanks to and our IP editor who were able to find these sources and add them to the article. I can't figure out why we allow nominators to get away with failing to search for sources, improve articles as an alternative to deletion and meet the obligations of WP:BEFORE, a problem that infects AfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.