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 Keep. RadioFan2 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No indication of why this exhibition is notable. RadioFan2 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the deprodder commented on my talk page with a Google books link here that seems to show coverage from print sources that establish notability. I wasn't going to pursue the deprod any further after I looked at that. MuZemike 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a single book mention does not significant coverage make.--RadioFan2 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you take a look at the search, it is actually 156 books. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seem to be other articles on this that can be found on google. I have added another to the page. The article seems verifiable, and if verified it seems like an art show significant enough to be discussed almost 90 years later would be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Locke9k (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MuZemike's Google link. This has appeared in various print source, proving notability. Tavix (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also find other sources, as Locke9k and Tavix point out. For a single exhibit, it seems to have gained quite a bit of attention. Here's a pretty extensive article about the exhibit: [1] Tons of material for a good article here. Cazort (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MuZemike's link (and others) given above. Looks like this is actually notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn its pretty clear that this has some historical significance.--RadioFan2 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]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.