Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There seems to be agreement that the (now much-expanded) content about this museum item should be kept, but it's not yet clear whether it should be merged somewhere or otherwise made part of a broader article. These discussions can continue outside of this AfD.  Sandstein  09:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)[edit]

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this individual object is notable - sources provided are from the museum which holds it. Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world. PROD was contested by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museum. PamD 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i agree we need a high bar for notibility on costume items in museums, but I believe this item may qualify if the article is expanded. Can you give me a few days to collect some research? - PKM (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussion normally lasts at least a week. I can see the argument that a museum object can be notable in the same way as an individual painting in a gallery - but as you say there needs to be quite a high bar so that we don't get every museum catalogue dumped into the encyclopedia. Good luck in finding some independent sources to support this garment's notability. PamD 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article significantly, and added references and many wikilinks. Let me know how you feel about these changes. -PKM (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I de-PROD'ed to allow a chance for discussion and further development, which seems to me appropriate. I don't think that we should have articles on every object in a museum collection, but this one does have a fair amount of scholarly WP:RS published on it, way beyond an entry in a museum catalogue. I'm not sure of what the answer ultimately should be, but I do think it's worth considering it as an art object, either by itself, or as part of a slightly broader cultural topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been a significant amount of reliable source commentary about this particular caftan as evidenced by the improvements to the article and supporting references. Nice job. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but with concerns about implications - see comment) - Hmmm. Keep does set a pretty dangerous precedent, for exactly the concerns I had with an earlier AFD that I opened for discussion - while very specific, individual museum exhibits (that aren't typical artworks) are notable (such as Tristan Quilt or Margaret Layton's embroidered jacket or Luck of Edenhall - these are very exceptional instances. (I also thought of the Tarkhan dress but that article is very minimal, although the object itself is indisputably notable). This is "my area of specialism" - being clothing/fashion related - and I'm dubious about it because of these reasons. I vote keep, because I feel obligated to do so based on the article and that it is something sort of approaching my area of specialism, but I am aware that this will potentially make it fair game to flood Wikipedia with articles on every single thing from museum catalogues that has been discussed in multiple sources. I think notability for this garment as a very rare survival of its type has been demonstrated beyond doubt. However, if kept it will need to be renamed so as not to confuse it with the 100+ other caftans in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum. Has this caftan a "name?" Is it called, say, the Moshchevaja Balka Caftan? Perhaps someone should create Moshchevaja Balka burial to discuss the archaeological site and the artefacts found therein, and have a chapter/section there specifically for this caftan as a notable artefact found therein? Mabalu (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mabalu:. Did you notice sourcing is entirely PRIMARY, to journals published by the Met (and 2 cites sourcing info about the type, not the specific object). Would you consider supporting a redirect to a new article about archaeologically discovered textiles or garments along the silk road? (you would know how to phrase/delimit such an articls better than I.) Because, as you say, keeping articles about objects sources exclusively to the museum that owns them is a highly problematic precedent to set.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the abobe: I'm not really bothered about primary sourcing in cases such as this, because major museums are usually really reliable sources even if technically there is a conflict of interest. They're not trying to sell a viewpoint or sell their stuff, they just want to share their research and findings and more-than-usually-informed interpretations of objects they have, from an expert's point of view. So no, in this circumstance, the COI doesn't really bother me. Mabalu (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the naming question, drawing from examples in a different medium, one could include the accession number., as in Neck Amphora by Exekias (Berlin F 1720). The new title could be Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1) or Caftan from Caucasus region (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vases are often referred to in this way, like manuscripts; generally catalogue/accession numbers are best avoided in titles, as no-one even in the field will recognize them. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the article could gave a stronger name. Thinking about what it should be called .... - PKM (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (as expanded) any reasonably complete 1200-year-old garment from anywhere is very likely to be notable, for heaven's sake, as they are so rare. Personally I am in favour of decent articles on individual examples of all sorts of artefacts. There is in fact no "danger" here, as very few people write such articles. Note that the entire Category:Individual garments tree has (I think) under 10 ordinary textile garments from before 1900 (excluding armour, crowns etc) for all world history! You will find the same very sparse coverage in most "Individual foo" categories. If you want silly over-coverage in museum areas look at paintings and biblical manuscripts. Yes, a more specific name would be better. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The problem with this article is that it is trying to do too much, covering both what a caftan is and one fine example of one in a museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, following article expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As above, any object like this, 1200-year-old - rare as hen's teeth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because the article is entirely PRIMARY sourced (correction: lacks WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing) (with the exception of 2 sources that describe this category of garment, not the garment itself). I love articles on individual museum objects such as the Arles Rhône 3 or the Magdala stone, but objects require secondary sourcing. Here we have only the Museum's own curators and journals. I think we need to Redirect and merge to an article on something like Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not WP:PRIMARY at all, but they do lack full independence. However, this is normal in articles on museum objects, where the best sources are very often provided by the museum, although often only as publisher, with the authors outside experts. There is no precedent being set here; instead the normal practice is being followed. In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles cited are scholarly, but they are published in the journal of the Museum that owns the object. Notability needs to be supported by sources that are independent of the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. That's what I'm saying. Btw, Knauer at least does not seem to have been a museum employee. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnblod, you are aware that the Met Journal commissions such articles, not for pay, rather, the Museum invites scholarly experts to come to the museum in order to examine a specific object and write it up for the journal? All perfectly scholarly and legit, just not independent.(private but widely understood info among museum professionals; no I don't have a source for this assertion. I just know how this journal works.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. And I am aware of the standards WP normally applies for such articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a conflict of interest, but COI's can be managed, and the MMA's standards, like those of other major museums, are such that it can reasonably be assumed that they have been. If there was a decent name to use as a search term it is very possible other sources would turn up. There may well be ones in Russian, but that's little help to most of us. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect target? Unless notability can be WP:INDEPENDENTLY sourced, I suggest that this discussion focus on finding an appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per E.M. Gregory. Sources most affiliated with the subject. Also agreeing with Peterkingiron's comment that most of the article expanded version does not deal with that particular caftan but with caftans in similar contexts. Hence, the deadly blow to Wikipedia's general architecture, that keeping such a page would mean. A peril that Mabalu explains very well in his comment. darthbunk pakt dunft 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a cogent, interesting, appropriately sourced article, exactly what I think of as "encyclopedic". The concerns about COI and independent sources are valid -- but unavoidable with many many objects of antiquity. @PKM:'s work here to expand the article is solid. The article should be renamed per comments above. --Lockley (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend WP:GNG for "objects of antiquity". I paraphrase Lockley and most of the editors above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's accept, at least prima facie, the "independence" or ability to manage COI of major museums. In fact we do this all all the time, for example for all types of information put out by government-run or financed organizations. It's a great mistake to prefer, as many editors do, garbled summaries of the same information scribbled down by "independent" journalists. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also prefer the scholarship of scholars, including scholars employed or commissioned to evaluate artifacts by museums. However, we absolutely require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish notability.as I and others suggest above, this material can be WP:PRESERVED by merged this to a broader topic with INDEPENDENT sourcing in re: notability..E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTABILITY is clear on this, notability is evidenced by independent sources. This has nothing to do with reliability, scholarly etc etc. And there is not enough independent sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - lack of independence does not cause this article to violate our key policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, in my opinion. The completeness and tone of the article shows that the subject can be encyclopedic without OR. Also, the MET Museum Journal is an edited journal with a review process standard to academic journals. The editorial board is all(?) MET department members, none of which are the authors of the articles on the Caftan. Two of the three authors are, however, connected to the MET. Harper is Curator Emerita in the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kajitani is conservator in chief of the Department of Textile Conservation. Knauer was not at the Met and was a leader at the Penn museum (her husband was Georg Nicolaus Knauer). Smmurphy(Talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Saying independence is required as you did further above and repeat here, does fit with what WP:IS says, but every time that essay says that, it refers to WP:RS, and to me the MET Museum Journal is a reliable source. I guess my argument is based on WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article doesn't violate, for example, WP:USESPS, and is more or less a secondary source based on WP:PSTS/WP:USEPRIMARY. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kaftan, the existing article on the garment. Those who advocated for "keep" above have not addressed the "independent of the subject" clause of the general notability guideline. This is a common problem among the many articles recently created for objects in the Met's collection following the Met's open access image release. No one is questioning the garment's importance, but how should it be covered? If the Met-specific garment is only covered in Met-specific sources, it would show that the object is only of importance to the Met. If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications—that is the intent of the "independent" clause. (Please ping me if you find more of those sources!) As it stands, most of the article is about the general use of the caftan, as @Peterkingiron noted, and as such, can be reasonably covered in the general article on caftans. (The Met journals are also fine sources for the general article, with no issues of independence because the article's subject isn't the Met-specific caftan.) If and when the garment, in specific, becomes separately notable from the general history of the garment, as shown in reliable sources independent of the subject, it can always split out summary style. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The independence issue has been extensively addressed above, it's just there is not agreement on the matter. Several people are "questioning the garment's importance" - what exactly is the difference between notability and importance? To say "If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications" - by which you effectively mean more publications available online in English - shows a misplaced faith, in particular given that the garment only reached the market in 1994, and that in this obscure field most publications are in Russian and German, like the large books on textile finds from this site by Ierusalimskaja, which no one involved in the debate has seen (in Russian and German). I don't see how "most of the article is about the general use of the caftan" at all, and this article would unbalance a shortish article about this very broad term, which is unspecific, not to say vague, like "robe" or "coat" in European clothing. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed, not addressed. If there is some litany of Russian/German sources that address the garment in detail, they are not mentioned in the article. All the other sources are affiliated with the Met, the organization that also holds the garment, making it (and those those articles) non-independent. If the article was on the burial or series of findings there, source independence would not be an issue. czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (did not vote above)Restructure -- The suggested merge target is a wide-ranging article, which would be unbalanced by a standard merger. Furthermore that article states that the Russian version differs from those of other countries some as far afield as Senegal. The Met Journal looks like an academic journal, probably peer-reviewed, and may therefore be sufficiently independent (though I have not investigated closely). I would suggest that we keep a short article on the Met garment itself and merge a summary of the rest into Kaftan. Nevertheless, we should not encourage articles on every museum object. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that the Met Jornal appears once a year, with 12-14 articles. The museum contains over 2 million objects, so most will have to wait millennia for their turn. Yet this object has had three different articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments and proposal. Well, this has all been most instructive. Comments first, and then a proposal.
    • Comments: (1) If this article had first been moved to main space in its current form, I doubt that anyone would have raised objections to its structure, focus, or sourcing. I am well aware that it is far from perfect - I have dug very deep looking for additional discussions of this object, to no avail. (2) It's news to me that a section on "background" or "context" for a highly-specific topic is inappropriate. Given an encyclopedia that has essentially infinite page space and infinite entry points, establishing context seems critical to me. (3) I believe articles on historical and cultural topics are once again being held to a higher standard than articles on other topics. How many articles on spacecraft do we have that are based solely on NASA documents? (Note, I think there's nothing wrong with that.) (4) I think establishing a standard in support of the independence of scholarly work published by or on behalf of museums is important, but I don't this AfD discussion is the place where that can happen.
    • Proposal. I suggest that this article be moved to Moshchevaja Balka textiles and expanded to include the leggings at the Met and anything we can properly source on the related items in the Hermitage, with the caftan cited as a representative example. We can also expand Silk Road which doesn't mention the North Caucasus route at all currently, and possibly trim the "Context" section after. Would these changes satisfy the outstanding objections? - PKM (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the best merge/repurpose proposal, though I'd be interested to see how the current nom will do at closing. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'd prefer to keep as a standalone article, with a possible more descriptive rename to North Caucasus caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (especially as the link to Moshchevaja Balka is based on a very educated scholarly deduction and not a documented chain of custody to an excavation). - PKM (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Rename Moshchevaja Balka burial, as suggested above by User:Mabalu would enable us to source the article to sources like this book on the silk road [3]. 'Note two things about that reference to the burial: First, that this source does not mention this caftan, only that silks were found in the burial. Second, that it is only one of the many preserved remnants of ancient garments found along the silk road in recent year. I want to Note also that this significant object is very far from being as unique as some editorial assert above. Garments have emerged from digs not only along the silk road, but out of the tundra, from European bogs, and from deserts; the Met itself owns a spectacular collection of ancient garments from Roman era Egyptian burials (i.e. older than this garment) that were previously held by the Brooklyn Museum. Certainly we should have articles on these things, but they need solid INDEPENDENT sourcing just as all articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a discussion with so many !votes is unorthodox but in this case it seems the prudent decision to allow further discussion on the merge/redirect/restructure proposals made in the last two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve content. There's not a standardized, catchy, one-word answer to how I think this needs to be handled. The current article is problematic. It approaches this topic from its perspective as a museum exhibit. Accordingly, the academic journal sponsored by the museum to publish research about its exhibits strains the definition of sources "independent" of the subject. But of course, what is important and notable about this object is not that it is a museum exhibit per se, but that it represents an archaeologically significant textile discovery from an archaeologically significant Silk Road burial site. The information here (absent some of the backgrounder on the definition of a caftan) is best served in an article at a different title. Moshchevaja Balka burial is my preferred choice, which also allows us to include other information about the site, its history, its discover, and so forth... Moshchevaja Balka textiles is a narrower topic that also seems plausible if there are other sources that specifically address the textiles at length. I'd rather we start with the former and spin out the latter if that proves necessary. Something like Silk Road archaeology is a broader alternative if Moshchevaja Balka lacks supporting sources. This approach solves the independence problem; the subject is no longer a specific item qua museum exhibit, and so the non-independence of the current sourcing evaporates. It also avoids the uncomfortable suggestion that articles on every individual museum holding might in and of themselves be plausible. This isn't strictly a redirect, and since the target article doesn't exist yet, can't in good faith by called a merge. Fundamentally though, our goal should be to keep the encyclopedic content, but not here and not precisely like this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Moshchevaja Balka burial allows wider information, but who exactly is the "us" who's going to write it? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like PKM, I'd prefer to keep it as it is (as !voted above) but Moshchevaja Balka textiles is certainly better than deletion. But who will write the broader content, to do which properly Russian or German are really necessary? The article is now greatly improved since nomination, and the nom arguments now I think don't apply. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An expanded Moshchevaja Balka article would be fine for details on the excavation, caftan, other items, but since it doesn't exist, I have to stick with the merge recommendation as the article's sources are not independent (all affiliated with the Met, the garment's holder). A merge, I'll add, also preserves the article history for anyone who wants to excavate it. Speaking of, want to drop some sources for this burial so we can stub it and call it a day? czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that this artefact has been the sole subject of multiple scholarly papers is a strong indicator of notability (and I'd certainly expect a perfectly preserved garment from the 8th century to be notable!). I appreciate the concerns about the independence of these sources—I can't find any indication that the Metropolitan Museum Journal is peer reviewed and its editorial board all work at the Met—but let's be pragmatic here. We require independent sources to protect the encyclopaedia from promotionalism and misinformation disseminated by people with an axe to grind. The Met, one of the world's foremost museums, has nothing to gain from misrepresenting objects in its collection in its in-house journal. And I highly doubt it gets any promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation. The journal may not be technically independent, but it fits the spirit of the independence criteria in the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interrupt this discussion to Note that museums do in fact covet "promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation." Museums are not so unlike other institutions. They can fail (see Category:Defunct art museums and galleries), even major art museums in wealthy cities can fail (see:Corcoran Gallery of Art, not to mention the Met's current, massive financial problems. Museums compete for scholarly prestige not least because it attracts loans, curators, visiting scholars and, most of all, donors of both cash and artifacts. Note moreover that this article was promoted and (deprodded) by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Met who ought at that moment to have insisted that it either find an WP:INDEPENDENT source or be included within a topic that has secondary sourcing. A small slip by someone who contributes a lot to the project, but surely an indication of the ease with which great institutions and the Wikipedians associated with them can too easily regard themselves as above the rules that apply to lesser mortals. It is problematic to have a "Wikipedian in residence" at a museum arguing to "keep" [4] an article sourced solely to a journal published by that museum. Would we feel differently about a single-artifact article sole sourced to articles in The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, a highly regarded publication of the highly regarded - but small - Wolfsonian-FIU? WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule. We need to apply it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the museum, and I had deprodded it, because I felt it deserved a full AfD discussion, but have abstained from a "keep" or "delete" here. FWIW, I think this is a general issue of sourcing to museum journals, and that principles should be applied uniformly, not just to the larger ones.--Pharos (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a PROD was too aggressive. Certainly WP:PRESERVE this well-sourced material. But can you specify what principles should apply to museum journals?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)(I never miss visiting the Wolfsonian when I'm in South Beach, and certainly regard The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, as a WP:RS. But I do not think we should WP:IAR and keep any article single sourced to the journal of the museum that holds it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that WP:IAR applies here. WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule, but applying it pedantically here would be a net loss for the encyclopaedia. Does anyone actually think there is something wrong with the material in the article cited to the Met's journal? – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we're here to consider whether the article should be deleted. Keeping it in its current form is a viable option – one which so far the majority of editors have supported. Please don't try to restrict the discussion to your preferred outcomes, E.M.Gregory. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is trying to delete it. Only to avoid the precedent that would be set by keeping an article about an object sourced solely to an organ of the museum that owns it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note my citation above of the fact that while the Metropolitan Museum Journal i sscholarly, it only publishes articles about objects owned by the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: as the PRODder and then AfD nominator, I feel I should add something to this lengthy and thoughtful discussion. When I PRODded the article with rationale "It's an interesting object but nothing indicates that it is notable in Wikipedia terms: the encyclopedia can't reproduce the museum catalogue of every museum in the world.", it was a very few sentences, sourced to the museum record and one of the journal articles. I was probably alerted to it by noticing it as an item in Category:Stubs with a bracketed disambiguator - while stub-sorting I often check these to make sure that they are accessible from their undisambiguated title, via a hatnote or dab page entry. I've just added a rather ungainly "redirect" hatnote to Kaftan. I am amazed that this object, if it is such a treasure of the museum, does not have a popular name like the Lewis chessmen - but perhaps it is more of a scholars' object than a museum visitors' attraction. Clearly this object is of scholarly significance, but I wonder how anyone is likely to find it in the encyclopedia - the article is not linked from any mainspace pages, though from a vast number of internal Wikipedia pages. I am not a textile history or museology expert so find it hard to opine on the notability of this object. The article as it currently stands appears to be of encyclopedic value, and we need to somehow establish criteria so that items on well-documented and extraordinary objects can be retained, while WikiMedians in Residence and others are deterred from copying large chunks of their catalogue records into the encyclopedia (Tall-stem thermometers?). PamD 22:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form (!vote of nominator): On consideration of the arguments above, I think that the museum's journal, while not strictly "independent", is a valid source: the museum's own regard for its reputation will ensure that only quality scholarly papers are published in it. I have concerns about the article title, but the object is almost certainly "notable" and merits coverage in our encyclopedia - whether as this stand-alone article or as a section of Moshchevaja Balka burial site or similar. PamD 22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caftan_(Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art)&oldid=1068887657"