Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconnu Independent Art Group

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconnu Independent Art Group[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. The entire article reads extremely like an advertisement and often completely fails to meet WP:MOS. Fails WP:V. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Issues with manual of style are an editting concern and are not dealt with through deletion. So that leaves the concern about verifiability from the nomination to deal with. Based on the article, they are an Hungarian art group that focused on opposing the Communist government. Looking through Google Books, we can find [1], [2], [3], and [4] as examples of coverage. Most of that material is in snippet views making it difficult to determine if the material verifies any of the facts in our article. However, there is no doubt that the group existed, and has some coverage. I suspect that somebody proficient in Hungarian may be able to find more online sources. Given the age of the group, there may also be offline sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This needs to be sorted by someone who speaks Hungarian, but in addition to the sources Whpq found, there's also stuff under the Hungarian name, e.g., a mention here, and a few things that look to be likely matches under Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks sources. I suspect this will cleanly clear GNG when the dust clears. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems necessary to hear from someone who speaks Hungarian. Wily D 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:28, 15 September 2012 (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.