Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Court

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 - No objections against speedy renomination - AFDs been up 3 weeks and has been relisted twice and so I think relisting for another week won't achieve anything in terms of discussion so closing as No Consensus - No objections against speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Court (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)

I can't see much evidence of notability for this organisation, that would prove it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. A Google search for articles or books reveals little, and several refs on the page don't mention it at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The article exists for two years and it's original form included some references from New York Times and some other serious sources. I definitely can't stay as is, being overloaded with non relevant and misleading references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (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.