Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perpetual Art Machine


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Perpetual Art Machine

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable art enterprise. Gsearch goes directly to the wiki entry. Then search finds, which I'm unsure if it's a RS. Then this in a different city. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The first citation (ArtDaily) is a press release, the second citation newyorkalmanack seems to be about an unrelated project of the same name. In a BEFORE I was able to find primary sources, such as an interview and the like, but nothing so far that is independent and in-depth. Will continue to look before !voting. Netherzone (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Netherzone (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. An evident case of WP:IBA, connecting with the article of Lee Wells which has been accused of WP:AUTOBIO. Even if some sources are available, I don't think anything will eventually pass WP:GNG. Chiserc (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. (Incidentally, this article might well have been deleted 16 years ago. It was created by an editor with an unambiguous conflict of interest, and in its early versions it was absolutely blatant spam. It was nominated for speedy deletion by shortly after its creation, but the speedy deletion tag was removed by  with the edit summary "notability is claimed, feel free to AfD if you wish", which made little sense, because the reason given for speedy deletion was to do with being promotional, not to do with notability.) JBW (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Being 16 years ago, I don't remember that. However, as it currently stands, the article doesn't meet notability requirements. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, no inherent notability per WP:ORGSIG. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with above, fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 21:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Delete for all the many reasons given by other editors above. This is an easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2023 (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.