Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pastellists


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pastellists

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As far as I can make out from the sources (which are mainly by one author), this is a term used to describe a single show. It more or less asserts non-notability, with phrases such as "there aren't any known records of the member meetings". Guy (Help!) 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any viable reason to consider deleting this article and don't understand the nom. The fact that members didn't keep minutes of their meetings is not a pertinent matter, yet this is stated and The Evening Mail review of "progressive and gifted artists constituting this group" is ignored. Having one show is not a reason to delete (cf Sensation) and is not even true. The article mentions four shows. The source alluded to in the nom (presumably Bolger) mentions the "second exhibition", which is visible in Google snippet view. Nom states, "sources mainly by one author": I'm not sure what the problem is there, as other sources are also used, particularly when the book by this author (I presume Bolger again) is American Pastels in the Metropolitan Museum of Art from a major publisher Harry N. Abrams or, according to the Google listing published by the Museum of Modern Art. There could hardly be a more substantial source. Google Books also shows ample other sources.. This group is part of the historical record of twentieth century art, and notability is far in excess of wikipedia requirements.  Ty  12:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is worthwhile placing in context some of the figures responsible for the Armory show. The article is sourced and can benefit from more work...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per  Ty  and Modernist. Easily satisfies Wiki standards of notability, and as Ty states, surpasses what we normally accept.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:14, 27 February 2010 (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.