Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battala Woodcut Prints

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. Consensus to retain article. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battala Woodcut Prints[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unremarkable regional art style. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battala woodcut prints have a very significant and pioneering role in the evolution of Indian art prints, every book on Indian art prints mentions Battala woodcut prints, if these were not significant reputed museums like Victoria & Albert Museum, British Museum, Victoria Museum would not have stored them, a wikipedia page on Battala prints is essential as not many people are aware of it because of rarity of these prints Dpradeepc (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)dpradeepc[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It was not difficult to find Google book sources from each of the Oxford, Indiana and Columbia University presses. Plenty more sources are out there.104.163.142.4 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources exists, these prints are in collections of major museums and have played a role that, if only briefly, is historically significant. Mduvekot (talk) 15:06, 17 August 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.