Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Jim Lodge


 * 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   delete. Tone 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lord Jim Lodge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speculation and conjecture on subject matter - a cardboard box - which does not include any reasonable referencing. . . patent nonsense? Artiquities (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - G1 - the article floats around so many subjects, I can't make heads or tails from anything. → Σ  τ  c . 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Oppose speedy. The topic is genuine, and appears to be notable. The apparent incomprehensibility of the matters expressed here is part of the point, I suspect. There is a group of Austrian artists going by this name and enough written about them and their journal to establish notability. The corresponding article in the German wikipedia is very different and suggests that it ought to be possible to improve this one fairly easily (even the business about the cardboard box could stay if an RS is provided, because it says something about the nature of the group and what it represents). But the editing should be done by somebody claiming to understand the world these artists inhabit and able to represent it to readers. NPOV demands that we do not just delete because we might think it is nonsense - much of 20th century art could be questioned on the same terms.--AJHingston (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup. Speedy declined. The article is slightly too intelligible to qualify for that CSD criterion, in my admittedly subjective opinion. That said, the group appears notable for one stunt, at outside most, and does not satisfy WP:ORG criteria unless more clear criteria for notability are met as outlined by that policy page. - Vianello (Talk) 08:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. 74.0.139.105 (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A couple of book hits&mdash;one not independent, one not significant&mdash;don't confer notability. Bongo  matic  00:43, 13 November 2011 (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.