Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knolling

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 redirect to Tom Sachs (artist). And merge as appropriate from the history if anybody cares to. The references provided in the "keep" opinion don't seem to have convinced anybody else. Sandstein 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knolling

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

Poorly sourced. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge with Tom Sachs, per comments below. There are a few sources out there-- Curbed, and some photo blogs. It's a word for a new hipster practice that has not been mentioned in any books. Tom Sachs promoted it ("always be knolling"), but when you put it together there is not enough here to say that there is SIGCOV In multiple reliable sources.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into the Tom Sachs article, as the trend seems to have originated with him? But generally agree with IP that the coverage is not SIGCOV. --Theredproject (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I would vote to ~~Delete~~. I think the word could be called a neologism. Because the sources are lacking I think the article is promoting the term. Having said that, I will concede that it may be a useful word. But we should reflect what already has received adequate sourcing. Merging it into Tom Sachs would also be acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would merge to Tom Sachs and leave a redirect as it is possible that sources will improve to the point it justifies an article with time. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 14:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Discussed in multiple sources independent of the creator over a period of many years. [1] [2] [3] [4][5][6][7][8] Including books. [9][10] [11]ResultingConstant (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Youtube and blogs and askmen.com are not terrific references.104.163.139.33 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is interesting and has received enough press coverage to be considered notable. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:26, 4 June 2018 (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.