Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Art Department International


 * 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. The additional sources have convinced several participants that there is some merit to the subject's notability while one has suggested merging the content with the artist. Either way, there is no consensus here for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Native Art Department International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, fails WP:ARTIST Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you get off Justlettersandnumbers? Your bias is clear for all the world to see on your talk page. Folks, she asked for additional references first, then in got pissy when I provided more than enough then reverted her moving the article to the draft space. Should this editor even be allowed on Wikipedia?--A21sauce (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Relax... this is a process that is about the rules of inclusion for Wikipedia. It is not a personal attack on anyone.104.163.142.4 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or move back to draft space. This article is definitely not ready for prime time.  The artist Maria Hupfield might be notable, as most of the sources actually mention her work, but not necessarily this program, or blog, or whatever it is.  There is a real feel of promotional advertising here. , YOU need to assume good faith and not engage in such an egregious attack on a very experienced editor.  The problem here is not racism, the problem is weak writing and weak sourcing.  I am posting a notice about this AfD at WP:IPNA to see if the editors there wish to add to this review or comment on the notability of this organization, and I am open to changing my !vote if there is substantial new content added and more independent third-party sourcing.   But my own search didn't come up with much, and normally blogs and PR programs don't pass WP's threshold of notability.   Montanabw (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as Maria Hupfield or provide better sourcing for NADI . Include the following independent sources;
 * A chapter of
 * 
 * 
 * --Carwil (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep — The articles present here show that NADI has crossed the GNG threshold. And the article has shaped up as a description of NADI in particular rather than Hupfield and Lujan. Hupfield still deserves a separate article and her notability is even clearer than NADI. Moreover, (from a slightly IAR perspective), the peculiar multiple life of NADI: an art production, a curation team, and an art blog makes it confusing to append NADI to Maria Hupfield. It's just better for the encyclopedia for it to be an independently searchable term rather than some hybrid collaboration/collaborator article. This may also be an area where Wikipedia guidelines are too comparatively restrictive in the visual arts: if a notable songwriter had a regular duo that had recorded three albums with critical reviews available about them, then we would absolutely keep such an article. So let's keep this one; I hope other editors will give a near-the-boundary case the benefit of the doubt for these reasons.--Carwil (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep obviously, as I worked on it. Thanks, Carwil. It makes a world of difference when editors are interested and experienced in the topic of the article they are editing! Thanks for these sources and let me know if you saw my additional reference adds from today.--A21sauce (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Maria Hupfield. The sources for "NADI" and "Jason Lujan" are too weak to support notability. For NADI, a search for news and book sources comes up with very little. The university sources are not very strong. On the other hand, Maria Hupfield has a profile in the Toronto Star and mentions in La Presse. Here's a profile on her for the Site Santa Fe show, and another one in the Yale Herald.  The notable article here is Maria Hupfield, not NADI or her collaborator.104.163.142.4 (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I think there are enough reliable third party sources here to suggest that we ought to keep it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have created Maria Hupfield so that there is an article to redirect to or merge with, should that be the outcome of this discussion. Mduvekot (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Although I nominated this for deletion, I'd have no objection to a redirect to that page as an alternative. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2017 (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.