Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulipamwe

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tulipamwe[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete. Not notable, had considered nominating it myself. The other article created by this account, Mikko_Ijäs, is probably also not notable.Litho derm 12:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed vote per impressive research by Tyrenius. Lithoderm 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lithoderm 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Fails WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful addition to wikipedia's meagre coverage of arts in Africa. It has international recognition as part of the Triangle Network.[1] Partners and sponsors include Standard Bank Namibia, Goethe-Zentrum Windhoek/NaDS, Franco Namibian Cultural Centre, Swiss Arts Council (Prohelvetia), Ford Foundation, Willamette University, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland, University of Art and Design Helsinki.[2] There is a book about it published by the University of Namibia.[3] Its International Artists' Exhibitions 1994 and 1995 are listed in the History of the National Art Gallery of Namibia.[4] Here's an event with the Goethe Institute.[5] SOAS lists Tulipamwe as one of the Triangle workshops which are "a significant vehicle for informal art education, providing otherwise unavailable opportunities for artists."[6] Ty 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a Google Books search reveals several secondary sources that establish well enough the notability of the project. Ewulp (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Google Book search. Ty 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems worthwhile and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty, but really this is much too long, & skirts extremely close to a copyvio of the website, when you poke around there. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2009 (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.