Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haven Arts

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Arts

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for better notability with none of this suggesting convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found some trivial mentions, such as [1] and [2] in The New York Times and [3] in The Wall Street Journal. However, I'm not sure there's enough coverage to satisfy WP:ORG. Maybe this could be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Perhaps somewhere in Culture of New York City or Mott Haven, Bronx? if nobody can suggest a good merge target, then I guess I'll probably go ahead and vote to delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like I'm going to vote to delete, then. Ping me if you come up with a good merge target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2016 (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.