Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artists' Collecting Society

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 prejudice against a renomination in 1 or 2 months from now. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artists' Collecting Society[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seemingly non-notable company in the United Kingdom. Only reference is a link to the company's website; the article has been tagged as needing inline citations (and more references, really) since April 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up mostly Wiki mirrors, social media pages, and casual mentions that the group existed - nothing that really fit for WP:GNG. There was a larger addition added, but I had to revert it for WP:COPYVIO, along with an edit from a user that seems to be the group itself. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fuzzy510, I am unclear why you have nominated the Artists' Collecting Society page for deletion. As you will be able to see from a google search, the Artists' Collecting Society is one of two collecting societies responsible for administering the Artist's Resale Right (ARR), representing some of the leading artists of the 20th and 21st century. Furthermore, there is a plethora of references to the Artists' Collecting Society in external websites, including but not limited to; UK Government Intellectual Property, British Copyright Council and CISAC. I noticed the page had artists that were out of date and needed to be updated. All of the changes I have made and was in the process of making have been deleted. Please can I ask you to refrain from deleting anything further from the entry, so I can ensure it is fully up-to-date and fully cited. Acsartists (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page clearly needed references, so I looked up two trusted sources: the UK government site Gov.UK and ArtQuest, which is a public programme of University of the Arts London supported by Arts Council England. Now that these references have been added, I do not see any reason why this page should be deleted. The purpose of this article seems to be to explain what ACS does, which is of public interest. Mrk421 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for the sake of parsing this AfD I'd like that add Keep. Mrk421 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Mrk421 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant copyright collective for the uk. The specialist media will have SIGCOVER, much of it paywalled. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

useful resource for art historians/marketplace so don't see this as meriting AfD. KEEP BvrdPcht84 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

realizing I didn't place my request in BOLD for automation/maintenance tools working through AfDs...to reiterate earlier, KEEP BvrdPcht84 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— BvrdPcht84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need policy based input from established editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A ProQuest Art, Design & Architecture search does turn up a few specialist references: Ben Wright, Art Market: Law and Art in Apollo 166 (2007) "details the Artists' Collecting Society's first year of collecting and paying out the proceeds of artist's resale rights"; Henry Lydiate, Fourth Year Report in Art Monthly 333 (2010) and Artist's Resale Right in Art Monthly 395 (2016) describe ARR and both collecting societies in a fair amount of detail. However, the other collecting society Design and Artists Copyright Society is also a fairly short article whose notability has been queried in the past; given that coverage tends to talk about both together, maybe merging them into an "Artist's Resale Right in the UK" article would work better? Adam Sampson (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objection to a merge, but the information ought to be retained somewhere. How artistic resale rights and copyright are handled in a major English speaking country of 60 million inhabitants is definitely of legitimate encyclopaedic interest to English-speaking readers. Elemimele (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by experienced editors; the comments by WP:COI/WP:SPA editors will need to be discounted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 13 April 2023 (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.