Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'Faces of Youth Arts

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, default to keep. On the one hand, the keep voters relied in part on sources that we later established not to be independent reliable sources. On the other hand, User:Aoziwe makes a valid argument regarding the depth of local sources. The participants advocating delete made good arguments as well, but ultimately the discussion, despite two re-listings, did not successfully generate a consensus one way or another. Steve Smith (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'Faces of Youth Arts[edit]

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

Non notable local (Whyalla) interest group. No national coverage. Local awards only. No claims of importance or significance beyond it own locality. Primary sources. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While the article is spammed with references to local newspapers, there are mentions in other sources as well. E.g. http://arts.sa.gov.au/organisations/dfaces-of-youth-arts https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/c/dfaces-of-whyalla-youth-arts/15574/ https://www.countryarts.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RAF-Grants-2014-October.pdf I haven't found a killer international link, but it's looking reasonable from the sources I have found and the few non-local sources in the article. Ross-c (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two government sites are not independent reliable sources. The Country Arts is clearly labeled as a media release. None of those are any good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally I would agree with the NOM on one like this, but while local there is very sufficient sustained non primary coverage for a more in-depth article than usual. WP:ORG gives two criteria for the presumption of notability but like all NSUBJECT guides the converse of not meeting these does NOT imply a presumption of not notable. The article seems to be well enough referenced and the subject seems to have quite a sufficient local profile. It is recognised in some state level Government sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems is not is. Local is local, however many sources there are in the newspaper. It's not difficult to get mentioned in a local newspaper. Local news media is always desperate for fillers. They will even report on a hoe stolen from a garden shed or a missing cat. D'Faces of Youth Arts has not hit nationwide, or even major out-of-state news outlets.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG, while sourcing offered above and in the article is primary or hyper-local. This content belongs on the org's Facebook page, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep largely per Ross and Aoziwe. The organisation has been active for a long time has attracted significant and sustained coverage in the local media and a story in the state-level media [1], and the article has been written in good faith (eg, it's not spammy). As such, I think that this just gets across the line. If we had an article on Arts in Whyalla or similar I'd prefer a merge, but I think that this is a viable article. We certainly have articles on more obscure topics (for instance, all the high schools in this town). Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Now source is very clearly only a trivial mention, nothing significant or sustained there. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate local puff or primary only, nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 14 May 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.