Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bag face

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 keep Consensus is that issues with article can be solved by editing, not deletion -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bag face

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

WP:BEFORE checks reveal little coverage of the topic. Interesting, but unencyclopedic and written like a blog post. DrStrauss talk 16:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or Keep I usually comment on people, so I'm not so confident about what is suitable for wikipedia articles in other areas, and what isn't. 'Bag face' appears to be a ... thing worthy of mention by major museums. E.g. http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O68518/bag-face-unknown/ https://collection.maas.museum/object/402329 http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/681589 https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/objects/18420069/ https://www.artsy.net/artwork/bag-face http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/bag-face-rug-68721 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=534787&partId=1 (Christies!) http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-lebab-turkmen-bag-face-torba-front-5419823-details.aspx etc. etc. etc. I find the article confusing as it seems to jump back and forward between discussing the bag face, and more general discussion about bags. It also lacks citations. But, perhaps this is a reasons for a multiple issues box mentioning that the article needs to be improved, rather than a delete. Ross-c (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the initial author of this. If I remember correctly this was done when I was working on the articles requested project. I had to contact a subject matter expert, who wrote the bulk of the article. I think the main obstacle to improving this article is the lack of sources, which makes it difficult to improve the article for someone who isn't an expert. The sources for this article will probably not be English sources though. BFG (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I realized the problem with the article is the main term, the way to solve this is to change the main term to Nomadic Bag, or Bag (Nomadic), I'm not sure which term applies. Bag face would then be a subheading and a redirect could be placed on Bag face. BFG (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs sources, not deletion. The subject is notable. This is the kind of thing that is discussed in the article. If such objects are collected by museums and of scholarly interest, they have a place in wikipedia. Khorjin currently redirects to Kilim. Bag face should be renamed to Khorjin, and replace the redirect. Mduvekot (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Readily can find many (thousands?) of hits on such items in museum collections. Seems to be more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to keep. Yes it needs referencing. Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:52, 23 August 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.