Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unit (art collective) (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unit (art collective)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Art collective long tagged for notability-was up for a AFD late last year and was voted no consensus. Wgolf (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep, it's been tagged for notability for over 7 years, so certainly deserves a good discussion. Has some notable members, but doesn't seem to be notable. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before:, , . Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: That sure as hell shouldn't have been a non-admin closure, it should've been relisted until more than two people spoke up. For my part, my answer to the only Keep voter is that notability is still not inherited.  I couldn't find anything remotely close to reliable on Google UK, and the sources in the article are garbage: a blog post from a long-defunct webpage, two gallery websites and an unlinked "Artists Newsletter." Fails the GNG by a country mile.   Nha Trang  Allons! 20:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - yeeuch. Notability is not inherited, no significant coverage, no notable achievements (not to mention non-encyclopaedic content and a big old puff-piece. Elephantbronze (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- nothing notable here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Repeating here most of my position on the first AfD: "not finding anything substantial that would indicate critical attention or evaluation of Unit as such. The principals of the group don't appear to have the established notability in their own right which might confer retrospective notability on this group, as suggested above, nor does notability inherit from putting on exhibitions by say John Latham, much of whose career probably preceded the lifespan of the Unit members. Unless someone can identify actual coverage of the group itself, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH." AllyD (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete because notability isn't inherited from its members, and it isn't notable on its own.  Kharkiv07 Talk  20:05, 5 April 2015 (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.