Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Art Museum of America


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

International Art Museum of America

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no significant coverage of this museum. founder may deserve an article for his scandals,, as a reincarnation of the Buddha and his theft of money in China. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'm seeing a lot of frankly puzzled coverage, like this. And "What the Hell is the International Art Museum of America?", the San Francisco Chronicle's blog asked, back in 2011. We do seem to have just enough independent sources to meet GNG. I wasn't sure what was meant by scandal but then I see that it's this odd character. Anyway, the museum still seems to be extant. I think it meets WP:GNG but fails WP:AUD, for local only coverage. That could be the reef upon which it founders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hello there! Please do not delete the page. I am working on making the necessary changes. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this matter. B3May15 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, user B3May15 was formerly user IAMA, the initials of the organization, and is a connected contributor.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No matter how much WP:AUD this has, the article is completely without inline citations to reliable references.  This makes it completely worthless.  WP:DEL7, with WP:IAR added because WP:V is a core content policy.  This article may be suitable for draftspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:SIGCOV in Huffington Post and San Francisco Chronicle. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by User:Safehaven86, which push this past WP:N. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:31, 3 October 2016 (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.