Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dikeou Collection

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dikeou Collection

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

Advertisement for obscure collection, written by a co-founder. Still unsourced ten years after the prior AfD discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references at all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Devon Dikeou. There are no references, but there are external links, such as [1] and [2]. The links describe the museum generally in the context of talking about Devon Dikeou. I don't know if any content needs to be moved; the 1-paragraph treatment at Devon Dikeou may be sufficient power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious PROMO in dire need of an editor to let the hot air out. However, even my very quick gNews search turned up ample support for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs some overhaul of course, of the WP:COI especially, but it meets notability. Just because it doesn't have references doesn't warrant a delete, and just because its original iteration was pretty flawed doesn't mean the page fails to meet criteria for GNG. At the very least I think the redirect idea above makes sense - deletion does not make sense at all though. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:37, 20 October 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.