Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BROODWORK

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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BROODWORK

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

promotional sounding language, not clear how this might meet WP:CORP. Reads like an ad for this company. RadioFan (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here. The BROODWORK page was created as part of the Art+Feminism Edit-A-Thon held recently at various locations nationwide, which was intended to bolster Wikipedia's spotty coverage of women in contemporary art, or issues particular or specific to women. BROODWORK is not a company, but an umbrella organization that organizes exhibitions and activities that promote dialogue in the arts about issues related to parenthood. My argument for notability would be BROODWORK's multiple exhibitions at high profile arts institutions, the specificity of BROODWORK's mission, and the notability of various participating artists. The language of the page was designed to be as neutral as possible. Does it require some cleanup? 2602:304:37A8:8F09:3CD7:370D:76D0:CE (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper sig (signed out). Glowimperial (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Would prefer to see it merged, but not sure on a target. Seems worth including in some form altough the efforts seems only marginally notable per WIkipedia standards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd support merge if there were somewhere to merge them too. Still not clear how this can stand on it's own as a notable topic.--RadioFan (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This is a notable organization with links to source articles and people involved. There is no cause for deletion or merging this article. Also, as above, it's not a company, which is clear in the first sentence. I am not involved with the practice and will be glad to assist in editing it if there is constructive feeback behind this deletion consideration. As it is, it seems like it was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrowbri (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 March 2014 (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.