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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

419 Boylston[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. There are no independent, third party reliable sources that assert that this group is notable. There are several external links embedded in the article, and none of them verify any of the statements in the article. They neither refer to the existence of any "419 Boylston" nor assert that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Searches of Highbeam, General OneFile, ProQuest and Google Books and Google News turn up no mention of 419 Boylston, other than frequent references to various tenants over the years of 419 Boylston St., Boston. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a fan of this art space and some years ago I asked people affiliated with it if they knew of any publications describing the work the residents do there. They knew of nothing. I confirm that nothing on Google mentions this place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This mostly makes sense to me. 419 certainly has notable published works (e.g. k-sketch, hi I'm pon, standardminds.com) but 419 itself is not usually referenced in the media. I believe there are notes in some of the works, e.g. standardminds.com. I'll defer to your judgement. -Toomim

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 11 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS to fulfill WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above and reads a bit like an ad. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:56, 18 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.