- 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) — Yash talk stalk 19:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Duluth Art Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article about a subject that does not meet The General Notability Guideline. Speedy Deletion WP:G11 declined. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Duluth Art Institute is a 110-yr-old non-profit arts and cultural institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alizarinc8 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and think there is enough sourcing for this to meet GNG. Some of the sourcing is regional and/or paywalled, but there are several non-regional articles from reliable sources that address the organization in depth. Its history goes back to the 19th century and there look to be plenty of articles in newspaper archives. The organization was previously known under a couple of different names, which helps to find historical articles. The University of Minnesota also holds material in its archives and special collections that can be used as an additional source. gobonobo + c 02:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple sources going back several decades are available, in both news and Google books. Since it is over a hundred years old, print sourcees are very likely to exist as well. Meets GNG easily just on the Google books and Newspaper refs. It would be pretty hard to be a public institution for over century and not have a decent amount publicity.96.127.243.41 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient sources exist to base an article on. Mduvekot (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:46, 12 March 2017 (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.