Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Arts (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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Modified Arts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's sigcov in https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arts/the-hive-has-a-new-owner-and-shes-got-big-plans-11493843 but like many articles of this nature, it fails to establish broader notability, thus fails WP:NORG which does have expectations of beyond local audience coverage. The previous AfD makes argument how it's important in locality, "have ### Google hits" but does not make a compelling argument that it's notable beyond the Phoenix area community. Much of the coverage is in that Phoenix New Times publication, and several glossary/listing type entries in books. Graywalls (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment We may follow WP:NBUILD which says a building ' may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance'. But it also says, the structure will need in depth coverage besides. ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 16:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , so what are you saying? The article indicates no importance of notability of building. However, an article about a historically notable shed shouldn't be in details about the non-notable lawn mower inside even though the article could talk about the history of shed, then merely mention that the home owner currently stores garden tools inside. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant that the building may have historical importance but it must have significant coverage to become notable. I think at wikipedia, we have these time tested rules like wp:sigcov in order to establish notability as mere mentioning historical significance is subjective and can mean different to you and me, but by significant coverage we can not differ much. In this case there is no significant coverage so I incline towards delete. -- ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 18:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Some local coverage in Phoenix area but I don't see enough to meet GNG. MB 05:09, 27 September 2020 (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.