Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus ArtWorks


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pegasus ArtWorks

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable government-funded art project. The only reference with in-depth coverage is a interview-style article in a local paper that reads like it's trying to drum up clients. Not seeing anything substantial in google. PROD removed by IP with comment "The Delaware Division of the Arts, Delaware Media and significant museums consider this program notable. I discovered it through the state run arts organization that considers it a significant program that reaches the entire state of Delaware." Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think that the references are sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The parent organization, Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware, doesn't even have an article, as it's just a state chapter of Boys & Girls Clubs of America, none of the state chapters of which have individual articles. The sourcing in the article is very thin: It seems to mainly consist of first-person sites or bare mentions (including links to first-person sites)—ref 3 is admittedly iffy, but given that the text is precisely reproduced here, one must assume that both derive from a first-person source. I can't see the text of the Wilmington News Journal piece in citation 7, but that would be only one presumably independent source; and I'm not seeing much elsewhere on the Web. This seems to be an article that has been furnished with a number of redundant citations, citations of sources that don't "address the subject directly in detail", and inappropriate in-text external links to make the topic's notability seem greater than the references warrant. Deor (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I have listed three independent sources that are non-biased. Content Delaware, Smyrna- Clayton Sun Times, and Wilmington News Journal are all respected media.  The fact that no one has written an article about the parent organization has nothing to do with the notability of the parent organization or this program under consideration.  As we all know there are many things that have not been written about that should be, and it is not necessarily the case that a parent organization's visibility is a reflection on the program or subsidiary. The arguments here seem to point to the need for the community to contribute to the article, rather then to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillygrl (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Although I think it only just meets the requirements for notability and RS, the Wilmington News Journal article covers the organization, and the Smyrna/Clayton Sun-Times provides a second reference. I also added a reference from the Cape Gazette. Between them, these seem to meet the guideline. Celtechm (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2012 (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.