Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)
to Kaftan, the existing article on the garment. Those who advocated for "keep" above have not addressed the "independent of the subject" clause of the |general notability guideline. This is a common problem among the many articles recently created for objects in the Met's collection following the Met's open access image release. No one is questioning the garment's importance, but how should it be covered? If the Met-specific garment is only covered in Met-specific sources, it would show that the object is only of importance to the Met. If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications—that is the intent of the "independent" clause. (Please ping me if you find more of those sources!) As it stands, most of the article is about the general use of the caftan, as {{ping|Peterkingiron|p=}} noted, and as such, can be reasonably covered in the general article on caftans. (The Met journals are also fine sources for the general article, with no issues of independence because the article's subject isn't the Met-specific caftan.) If and when the garment, in specific, becomes separately notable from the general history of the garment, as shown in reliable sources independent of the subject, it can always split out Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style. File:Eye close font awesome.svg|14px|link=user:czar/watching|I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response&nbsp
— [[User talk:Czar|czar]], 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)