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. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sackler Center for Arts Education[edit]

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

Welcome to the deletion discussion for Sackler Center for Arts Education. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. -- This was added by User:Amrit.ghimire13 (talk) on 16 August 2014

Hi there, I'm wondering what could make this article stronger for it to exist on its own, or whether or not Wikipedians would favor absorbing this into the main Solomon R Guggenheim Museum article. I'm working with our archivists here at the Museum to find more news articles and resources that detail the Sackler Center's construction and opening in 2001. I'd be happy and grateful to hear what others think. -- Prpldv06 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No reason for deletion is given by the nominator, but as the article stands now, I think the content would be better served by merging it into the museum's article, to the extent that it is not already there. There does not seem to be much unique information here. A redirect can be left in its place. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the AfD discussion page and article. Ansh666 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Andrew (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK is not applicable here owing to a !vote in favor of a merge redirect backed by a cogent argument. But yeah this AfD is a mess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not deletion. The nominator seems to be a new editor; the nomination is incoherent and almost certainly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE as I find it quite easy to find sources which discuss the topic in detail. The subject is a respectable institution which should not have to suffer the derogatory assertion that it should be deleted by someone who does not appear to have much clue. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nominator may well be knew, but we have a cogent argument and !vote for a merge and redirect. I think that satisfies the spirit of the law. No need to preempt discussion. If the article deserves to be kept, I'm sure it will be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:SK, we require a reason to delete for a deletion discussion. Non-deletion actions "such as moving or merging" are inadequate. Andrew (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually very little is required on Wikipedia. WP:SK is a guideline, not canon law. Like all guidelines it is subject to both community consensus and WP:COMMONSENSE. And for the record, although I am still searching online for sources, as of right now I am leaning rather strongly towards a Delete !vote. The cited sources do not meet the standards normally applied by the community and I am having a lot of trouble finding something that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Only one of the cited sources meets WP:RS, the other being affiliated. And the one RS source only mentions the subject in passing. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell, which I did find rather surprising as these sorts of orgs usually garner enough attention to pass GNG. I did however find quite a bit in reference to an identically named organization affiliated with the Victoria and Albert Museum in Great Britain. I remain open to reconsideration if better sources are found but as of right now, I don't see enough here to bother with a merge.-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should have been an immediate Speedy close. Nominations like this (let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks) should be strongly discouraged. In any case, this 'stub' is only a month old and should instead be marked as 'needs references' and 'expansion'. At the worst, it should be merged with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: I'm with VMS -- regardless of the pile-on, if the nominator doesn't proffer a reason to delete, an article should not be at AfD. Ravenswing 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fine. If it will satisfy our legalistic impulses I will not object to a procedural close to the AfD. I will however, immediately renominate the article based on my observations above. It appears that common sense is out to lunch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of renominating, I suggest starting a merge discussion, which I would support, and then we can merge any useful info into the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum article, while leaving behind a simple redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will counter with the suggestion that we just boldly merge and redirect the article now, and save everyone a lot of trouble. As far as I can tell no one has suggested here or elsewhere that the article passes GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Solomon R Guggenheim Museum. It seems almost everything that could be said about the 'Center' is in the article, it would not be disproportional to include it as a short section in the very lengthy Museum article. I can't find any other sources (apart from a medium length Dance Teacher article accessible via Highbeam) and everything I've read suggests it is an integral part of the larger Museum. Sionk (talk) 15:24, 25 August 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.