Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania

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 -- Y not? 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical exhibitions concerning Oceania[edit]

Contested prod. The only main contributor, User:Researchcooperative, possibly has a conflict of interest. Based on their contributions[1], they created their account for the sole purpose of making this page. It used to have an advert tag, but it was removed without explanation [2]. I wish I could say what it was accused of advertising, but the link on User:Researchcooperative is kinda broken. The article also used to have a signature[3]. The article sat around with some statements in the first person plural for 11 months (not true anymore (no thanks to me) but it might make the author look like a spammer, which might make the article seem like spam).

I have a hunch the article has some deeper problems (my 'spammer' argument is pretty heinous), but can't back up that hunch. I can't imagine it achieving good article status, or even fitting in with the 'manual of style', really. --Haikon 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially, this article is a list of insufficiently notable museum exhibitions. Any relevant and encyclopedic material should have instead been added to the articles for the museums themselves (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Auckland War Memorial Museum, and Bernice P. Bishop Museum). — Satori Son 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Satori Son - the content could possibly be merged as suggested.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual exhibitions dont have to be notable --thats the point of a combination article. There are undoubtedly articles though on each, most museum exhibitions get reviewed. Do we really want to give information at each museum article about the hundreds of exhibitions it has held? An article does not have to be capable of being a GA, that's not a reason for deletion. Neither is being written by someone without COI, or even a SPA. I removed the ad tag when I removed the stuff that looked a little like spam. DGG (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with everything you say except "The individual exhibitions dont have to be notable." I personally do not believe Wikipedia should have list articles of non-notable events or exhibitions. (Also, I did not mean to say that all of this information should be merged into the relevant museum articles, only that some of the info could be so merged if it was relevant and encyclopedic.) — Satori Son 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly move appropriate content to Te Maori and expand that -- international traveling exhibitions are often notable. The remainder is not notable and somewhat OR/POV (I'm sure that museum curators outside of Oceania have as much pride in their ability to put together good exhibitions). Individual museums in Oceania that are notable should have their own articles, not a hodgepodge article defending how good they are as a group. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete who the heck is ever gonna look it up? Jim62sch^dissera! 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"it's useless" is a bad an argument as "it's useful". We can have arcane articles not having size limits. I think the nature of this article is as a combination article to avoid having articles on individual non-notable conferences--as there is fairly general agreement that it would be a very unusual single conference that would warrant a separate article--almost all the existing conference articles are, correctly, for notable conference series. I think this is a reasonable way of doing things when doing them as a series is not applicable, and others can and should be added. DGG (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments offered by User:Dhartung above. There is also a POV issue here, why just these three exhibitions? What makes an exhibition "historical" enough for inclusion, and what content does it have to have to "concern Oceania"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:28, 17 February 2008 (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.