Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)
The fact that this artefact has been the sole subject of multiple scholarly papers is a strong indicator of notability (and I'd certainly expect a perfectly preserved garment from the 8th century to be notable!). I appreciate the concerns about the independence of these sources—I can't find any indication that the ''Metropolitan Museum Journal'' is peer reviewed and its editorial board all work at the Met—but let's be pragmatic here. We require independent sources to protect the encyclopaedia from promotionalism and misinformation disseminated by people with an axe to grind. The Met, one of the world's foremost museums, has nothing to gain from misrepresenting objects in its collection in its in-house journal. And I highly doubt it gets any promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation. The journal may not be ''technically'' independent, but it |fits the spirit of the independence criteria in the . &ndash;&#8239
— User:Joe, 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:COMMON||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means)