Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Media Caucus

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 delete. Ignoring the double vote, and the non-policy based keeping, as well the obvious self-admitted WP:COI/promotional here. Read WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Secret ^account 03:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

New Media Caucus

New Media Caucus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is an affiliate of the College Art Association and seems to be a very loose organisation based around a regular magazine. Membership is in fact a mailing list with no membership fees or requirements (judging from their website). The article is almost entirely unsourced and came to my attention when an IP updated it with the (unsourced) details of the 2013 conference. I can see little independent coverage online about the Caucus. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give a mention in the CAA article? Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to College Art Association, this organization doesn't seem to have independent notability. There are sources on Google News, but they seem to refer to two other New Media Caucuses run by the Republic Party and the WGA. The only source I found for this New Media Caucus was this trivial mention. Most of the sources provided in the article are not independent, the only good one is this which mostly discusses the CAA. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• From what the author says below, there may not be a suitable article to merge to. Sionk (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

− I really hope this is the right place to discuss this with you / I know there are many WP rules, I've never had an article marked for deletion, so I'm trying to get up to speed quickly - if there is a more appropriate location/format/method for response, please let me know.   Independent Articles: the latest event at the National Academy is being reviewed / I'm waiting for an independent article (that I was interviewed for) to be published to add it to our list of references - I'm uncertain on the timing, but it appears immanent (2-3 weeks). Our showcase at the national academy museum and school is a hugely significant step. The National Academy (founded in 1825, long history of recognizing painters) began inducting practitioners of new media art this past year, and partnered with us in the presentation of our annual showcase. I know that notability cannot be inherited, but one of the roles of the National Academy in particular is to independently recognize contributions in the field. The fact that they would embrace us and allow us to present in their museum (next door to the Guggenheim) is a very big deal.

References: i've added several references, and I am working to compile more, though I am trying to be stringent to live up to the WP guidelines. We've put energy into maintaining this page for several years, but I can see now that we need to be better about providing sources. i didn't realize how quickly this review process would occur, and hope that we can be afforded some time to compile a more thorough set of references.   Size & Growth: The NMC is the fastest growing CAA Affiliate. With 900+ members, we add ~100 - 150 new members per year. We've done this regularly for the past six years. This number represents an enormous percentage of the individuals teaching new media art in higher education. I'm researching how best to cite this. If there are suggestions, I'd be very open to them. I know this from the NMC original research conducted that compiled all schools / programs where new media art is taught at the undergrad, grad, and doctoral levels from around the world, and can verify from my membership list where people are studying / teaching / researching / practicing. Again, any suggestions on how to translate this into a viable source would be appreciated.

Membership Fees: While we don't have general membership fees, we instituted a new constitution/bylaws in 2011 that established a 20 member (elected) board of directors. board members are required to pay dues ($75). Because New Media Art is a complex, diverse and interdisciplinary field - and many of its practitioners are young academics, we've actively and repeatedly decided not to institute general membership fees. This means that all of the events that we've planned have been in partnership with the host institutions - institutions which have donated the use of their facilities, staff, and resources. Considering the list of partnerships includes the School of Visual Arts, The Los Angeles Center for Digital Art, the Southern California Institute of Architecture, Columbia College Chicago, Hunter College and the aforementioned National Academy. This has not come easily and represents the efforts of hundreds of volunteer members over the course of ten years. Again, I understand that notability isn't inherited from these institutions, but I am suggesting that the fact that they have genuinely invited us to work with them (we've always had space/ resources donated as we have extremely limited budget) is a marker of our significance.

Journal: I realize we can't self-cite our Journal Articles, but I think its important to note that our Peer Reviewed Journal (above called a magazine, which is slightly different) - has a 13 member international editorial board, and is one of the sites of production of scholarship for this field. Realizing that there are few forums for scholarship and recognition for new media art in particular, we established the journal eight years ago to provide a forum to increase rigor and promote growth. Again, I'm at a loss for how to reference this, but I'm privy to how 60-70% of our new members cite the journal as the reason for their interest and involvement in joining. There are not a lot of other journals in the field. However, I should like to point out that recently, the International Symposium for Electronic Art reached out -to us- to publish articles related to their 2012 Symposium in Albuquerque (occurred at several dozen prominent cultural institutions in ABQ for 10 days). This publication will occurs in Sept., 2013. At the moment the relationship is public knowledge, and we are in the process of collecting materials for review, editing, and publication.

− I really want to make this work and will help any way I can. Any advice would be sincerely appreciated.   Sincerely, Paul Catanese - nmc president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: the ISEA-Web organization published the announcement about the partnership here: http://www.isea-web.org/2013/02/isea2012-participants-who-did-not-publish-in-isea2012s-conference-proceedings/ -paul

Also - I'm not sure how to translate the numerous citations from tenured/tenure-track professors who list their NMC membership on their vitae - I realize a list of names is difficult to discern. But our significance within this small field is based on the strength of our membership - the fact that leading practitioners are members, and board members must contribute somehow to our nature. If it would be helpful, i can provide a list of particularly notable individuals and show how they are involved / related. As a professional organization, the fact that the actual professionals from the field (of new media art) are members and participate in our activities, I hope, is significant. -paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The article's problems had been flagged-up since October 2011 but no improvement was forthcoming. Unfortunately, to prove an organisation is important, we need to see evidence of coverage about it from secondary sources (with a level of independence and editorial scrutiny). We can't put much weight at all on the fact the organisation itself says it is important. Sionk (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

An option may be to move the article to a user's sub-page so they can improve it (as and when reliable secondary sources becoem available). If the user was you, you'd need to register a Wikipedia account. However, as the NMC president you have an obvious conflict of interest, so it wouldn't be a great solution at all. Sionk (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

References on academic organizations in the arts are not always covered in mainstream sources; I'm trying to assist and contribute by employing my knowledge of the field to find references. The "unanswered flag" seemed like a good opportunity for me to do some work and assist - now, it seems my efforts have made things much worse. I'm confused as to how my adding references to third party articles is a conflict of interest? I did not provide leads to any of the dozens of -peer reviewed- articles from our Journal, because that seemed clearly like bootstrapping. I've added four so far, and have two additional ones forthcoming (unless I shouldn't?) For example, the leonardo education and art forum wrote a review of one of our sponsored panels, claiming it was the most controversial at the (chicago 2010) conference; this was published in The Newsletter of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology and of l'Observatoire Leonardo des Arts et Technosciences; additionally, as I mentioned, there is a forthcoming article regarding our event at the National Academy. I was interviewed after the event, and when the article is published, if its innappropriate for me to be the one making the edit, perhaps there is a wikipedia editor i can forward the information to for inclusion? Clearly, my lack of understanding of wikipedia policies is partially to blame, but i have been trying to familiarize myself while on an abrupt timeline. I want to be helpful, since I have knowledge of the subject area.

Relatedly, I think its worthwhile to understand that the relationship between CAA and its affiliates is different than what has previously been implied by others' posts (above). In particular, NMC is an organization founded independently of CAA, and after applying to CAA, we were granted affiliate society status. CAA is the premier professional society for higher education in the visual arts, and they don't grant affiliate society status for every organization. Considering that they were under no external pressure to recognize us, I would think is a marker of external recognition. I'd at least like to hear how that level of review and independence is not a valid marker of notability? Following up on this point, the CAA website (http://www.collegeart.org/affiliated/) outlines the following information regarding organizations that are interested in becoming affiliates: ″CAA welcomes as affiliated societies groups of art professionals and other organizations whose goals are generally consonant with those of CAA, with a view toward facilitating intercommunication and mutual enrichment. It is required that a substantial number of the members of such groups will already be members of CAA.

To be recognized by CAA as an affiliated society, a group must be national in scope and must present evidence that:

   It is primarily, or in large part, committed to the serious practice and advancement of the visual arts or to the study of some broad, major area of the history of art
   It possesses a formal organizational structure, that is, elected officers, an identifiable membership, and signs of ongoing activity such as a newsletter, periodical, exhibition record, or other documentation″  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC) 

Additionally, I'd like to hear a response to my earlier point regarding the fact that our membership, at 900+, represents a significant portion of the professoriate teaching in this field. This can be determined by examining the number of fine arts departments teaching new media art, and comparing those individuals to our membership. i'm not at all certain what the best way ro accomplish that is. There doesnt seem to be guidelines for academic professional societies, if i've missed them, please direct me.

At this point, I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do. Is there any role for me? -paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I made an account. (I don't know how to find the conversation you started w/me Sionk) (Pcatanese (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC))

While I respect the AFD request given the guidelines, I would like to add the following: 1: The NMC should NOT be placed within CAA, as it is only an affiliate and not part of CAA proper. This would require the addition of many other affiliates that are not part of CAA, like Public Art Discourse, Radical Art Caucus, and many others. It is its own entity and should be cited as such. This would cause a great deal of unneccessary complication.

2: The NMC is not "loosely organized", as it is a group with a full set of bylaws, a Board of Directors, and several committees.

3: It also deserves disambiguation from other New Media Caucuses, such as the Republican New Media Caucus.

4: The problem may stem from citability, but in my opinion, the New Media Caucus entry has real credibility as an organization.

5: I suggest that the Executive Board of the NMC be given solutions and a timetable to complete to the Wikipedia community standards (preferably 90 days+).

    5a: I feel that the group has veracity, and should be allowed to find solutions before going AFD.

Patlichty... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patlichty (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - casting my 'vote' as nominator. From the explanation given by the NMC President above, I can't see a suitable article to redirect to. Because the main author has a very significant COI, I can't see much benefit in allowing time to userify it. Being a 'credible' organisation isn't sufficient reason on its own to have an article on Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep

(1) I am discouraged by lack of assistance from nominator w/regard to direction regarding proper procedures for adding references regarding our 'notability' Several references - the most significant of which is an article appearing on Rhizome.org have already been added to the article. For those unfamiliar, Rhizome.org is the foremost organization in new media art, and is additionally part of the New Museum of Contemporary Art in NYC. The article addresses the historic occasion of the CAA (premier visual arts organization, 100 years old) for recognizing NMC as an affiliate; the article continues by outlining the conceptual territory that NMC is seeking to examine, and reviews several events during one of CAA's conference where this agenda was examined. This reference _alone_ should count for our notability, and yet it has not been adequately addressed or taken into consideration in any way.

(2) Several other notable references exist, found via thorough searching. For example, in Leonardo, appears an article which characterizes our sponsored panel: “New Media/New Terrain: Pioneering a Ph.D. in Creative Research” as "One of the more controversial panels" at the 2010 conference. ISAST / Leonardo is an internationally recognized, 40+ year old organization which is focused on Art, Technology & Science collaborations - their notice of NMC events is not insignificant. This, and other references have _not_ been added to the article yet, per note #3. (The reference is: 'The Newsletter of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology and of l'Observatoire Leonardo des Arts et Technosciences. By: Quillan, Kathleen. Leonardo. 2010, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p416-419.')

(3) Nominator characterizes my involvement as "main author" and cites this as conflict of interest. I am _not_ the main author of the article, but freely admit that I sought to edit the article in order to add references, per the flag on the article requesting 'needs references'. Since many of the references are not 'findable' via casual search (e.g. google, bing) - some assistance with specialized sources seems required - which I am willing to do - even if it means working with others to vet the process. I am disheartened that upon learning that providing references is frowned upon, and that I've been provided no guidance regarding how to collaborate with others to provide input on this process.

(4) I am acting in good faith and am uninitiated in wikipedia editing protocols. I have spent the better part of the weekend learning about these protocols, and would appreciate good faith in return. A different commenter (above) offered a middle-ground solution of providing "a timetable to complete to the Wikipedia community standards (preferably 90 days+)." - I can appreciate the balanced viewpoint (that the article needs to meet WP community standards), but that more time is required, especially since the editing process likely will need to be done in coordination w/third-party editors to ensure neutrality.

(finally) I would appreciate hearing input from additional editors regarding this case (is that the right word?), so that this process feels like it is a consensus emerging from the viewpoints of several individuals, rather than just the views of Sionk and I. Again, I'm aware that I'm likely demonstrating how completely green I am here, but I'd love to hear input from additional individuals, not to mention, some clarification about how a process like this can possibly move forward on the say-so of a single individual. (Pcatanese (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

As I've mentioned at User talk:24.12.251.243, the Rhizome.org 'article' is in fact part of a community forum discussion, therefore not considered a reliable source. Re getting a wider viewpoint, the discussion wil more than likely be extended beyond 7 days if there's no clear consensus for a particular action. Sionk (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an acceptable way to copy over the few notes from the IP talk page - but I do understand the point you're making. I'm beginning to better understand how this works / what we're looking for - and yes, I am searching through (offline) journals, announcements, etc. to find suitable references (leonardo is one) - though I'm working on finding more. Thank you for pointing out your note re: the Rhizome article; I guess that its a good secondary source then?

I've been trading emails with the editors from an online journal that covered our event at the National Academy. I'm trying to find out what their timetable for publication is - my understanding is its in the "week or two" range. I don't want to publicly announce the name of the journal, but this is more out of respect for their editorial process - I know that seems weak, but I can provide it via email or some other secure form if one is available / if that is necessary - to a certain degree, I suppose its moot until they publish.

I've spent some time reading your other articles to get a sense of your approach - this has been very helpful. I still believe that with some time and digging, we'll be able to find the references that are being sought out to establish notability. However, I'll also offer that I can see immediately that editing is going to be needed - and that some items might better be located on the NMC website in the form of a "history" section, which I can help facilitate. Still, I think that there should be some manner of noting the notable events that have been covered (Jessica Walker's panel at CAA2010 addressed in Leonardo, NMC Showcase CAA 2010 addressed on official CAA Conference Blog, NMC Live Cinema Summit addressed on official CAA Conference Blog, etc.).

The more difficult question I have is how to address the "CAA recognizing NMC" idea. I know that CAA didn't write a journal article on this, but the notability rules _seem_ like they are flexible enough to make accommodations for multiple paths to notability. I'm not saying that we're inheriting notability - I'm saying that (in the field of visual art practice) CAA is genuinely in a position to _grant_ affiliation such that notability is implied / they are one of the "high courts" if you will. Can't an action of this ilk "count" towards our balance? From my perspective, the tipping point is that this isn't just any affiliation, but it is a historic, hard-won precedent for CAA (as a well established visual arts org) granting special status (by special, I mean: any status) to a media-arts org. Its important because there is a real active area of dialogue regarding the contemporary/fine/visual and the media/newmedia/art+tech+science spheres / figuring out their shared terrain. There are _many_ in both spheres that aren't certain of the overlap, trajectory, or in some cases the necesity for the spheres. Not too long ago, this wasn't even a conversation that the contemporary/fine/visual sphere would entertain.

Additionally, we've had tremendous growth the last 6 years, which has come to the notice of CAA also.

(thank you, Sionk) for clarifying that there may be more time provided to work on this. I really appreciate your patience and guidance - and it _did_ start to dawn on me that _you_ might be the person who could help w/vetting the third-party sources. Perhaps this sounds strange, but it hadn't entirely sunk in that there isn't a star-chamber watching all this. Its quite empowering via "neutralizing" to understand that this is a partnership.

BTW: If there is a future for this article, the other editor's note regarding the need for a disambiguation page might be a very good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcatanese (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (19:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Keep -- For three reasons: 1) because it is notable (or at least more notable than the 200 odd high schools in Kansas, minor Antarctic mountains, or 10th magnitude unconfirmed brown dwarfs that get Wikipedia articles); 2) because there seems to be some evidence for notability, it's just not in the hands of those versed in Notability Standards; and 3) because this kind of over-zealous pursuit of notability is just the kind of thing that discourages part time editors like me (200 edits over 8 years). To be honest, if this gets deleted, I will probably give up on Wikipedia editing and turn my attention elsewhere. I thought Wikipedia was trying to be more encouraging not actively discouraging?Grhabyt (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia becomes a free bulletin board for every minor organisation, I'll probably give up too :) The authors were reminded of the problems 12 months ago but chose to ignore them. Sionk (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

comment Sionk, I think that your response is revealing. You seem to be genuinely interested in improving WP, and I definitely think that is a good cause. I'm not certain if you've ever taught, but if you ever have, you would know how amazing _and_ damaging WP can be for student research. I have, and because of that, improving quality certainly holds a high place in my heart. I've always applauded WP for its quick healing (I've done analysis on this), as well as its ability to fill in the "gap" in knowledge between the rigidity of printed encyclopedia and the free-for-all of the open internet. The notability kludge needs further efforts of sharp minds such as yours to ensure that the balance does not eliminate what is genuinely valuable in that latter statement. In reviewing your editing history, especially with regard to the large numbers of articles for deletion 'cases' that you've advanced, I wonder if you ever question the notability guidelines themselves? It seems it is an area of contention on WP itself, which I've begun to investigate, for reasons you will no doubt, understand. I'll admit that I'm puzzled regarding the deletionists vs. inclusionists binary. I offer the following jibe ironically - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), as you will notice _you_ are not actually notable - perhaps you are not actually qualified to edit so narrowly! Mind you, I realize that may be received slightly incendiary, but please realize that I intend it respectfully - to encourage you to consider that the deletionists vs. inclusionists actually a distraction from the genuine issue of a desire for quality control bumping up a currently flawed approach. Namely, the notability guidelines are well intentioned, but poorly/vaguely developed and implemented, and more fully establishing those could help reduce a great deal of frustration and lost effort on the part of an immense number of well-intentioned individuals, from named experts to anonymous experts; named amateurs to anonymous amateurs; school-children to college professors, etc. As a leader of a reasonably complex volunteer organization that you've at least agreed exists, I can promise you (and whoever else might read this) that harsh implementation of poorly written guidelines is a sure path to a self-amplifying mechanism that will further alienate those who might provide a balanced voice in this hallowed... err.. webpages. Wouldn't you rather improve the guidelines so that there are fewer AFD discussions necessary? To me, an AFD debate represents those moments when the guidelines of WP fail / allow break down. It is a last-step at attempting to impose order to chaos, and in at least some cases, I would argue, the AFD process may be used to "tamp down" that which it doesn't understand - as much as it "eradicates" articles of low quality. You seem able to articulate arguments well enough that I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the notability guidelines themselves. Anyway, I realize this another one of my relatively long comments that I am more than happy to share with you. (20:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) (Pcatanese (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) (Pcatanese (talk))

As you say, AfD should be one of the last resorts. Therefore, rather than pick apart my edit history, please stick to discussing and/or improving New Media Caucus. The Wikipedia notability guidelines have been developed and amended over many years and, in general, they serve the purpose well. If anyone wants to argue for an exception to the guidelines, they're more than welcome. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't request that I do not look at your public edit history - perhaps you should not edit so much if you don't want your history viewed. Particularly since I was doing that research as a method of better understanding your intentions and biases. I am interested in understanding your point of view, and hoped that examining _other_ cases where perhaps I would be less likely to lose objectivity, I would be able to learn how to interpret your arguments. I've seen evidence that you appear to apply the notability guidelines in a rather narrow manner throughout your edit history, and I thought that was something I would point out to you, since _you_ are of course unable to be objective about yourself. (Pcatanese (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

You're more than welcome to look at my edit history. What I said was this isn't the place here to analyse it. This is an Articles for Deletion discussion, discussing New Media Caucus. Using an AfD discussion to have general conversations about something else could be seen as disruptive, so it would be better if you spent your time improving the article. Sionk (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

comment - I'm confused, I made it clear I was leaving a comment. Please assist with best practices whenever you're ready. You said "Therefore, rather than pick apart my edit history, please stick to discussing and/or improving New Media Caucus." I am trying to improve the NMC page. One of the ways that I am doing that is trying to learn more about the sole individual who seems to take issue with the NMC page, and genuinely understand your point of view. What is clear and obvious from your editing history is that you have a biased method of applying the poorly formed notability guidelines. I should think you of all people wouldnt be swayed by how long or how many individuals contributed to them, one can see by _reading_ the guidelines that they are not entirely well balanced - and they lead to much frustration. I assumed that the comment flag would indicate that this is, in fact, a comment. Anyway, I think that your bias, clearly documented in your editing history is completely relevant to this particular 'case'. However, it has no bearing on the 'votes' that aren't 'votes' that are counted as 'votes' in the stats for the AFD. Anyway, I just want to let you know that I find your passion for wikipedia inspirational. That is - I'm inspired to help ensure that editors with narrowness/bias issues are balanced out via additional voices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcatanese (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

comment finished adding several references. Understand not ideal. sought best practices from nominator, was not given feedback as to how to provide references. Please see article for several additional references. more forthcoming.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

---

question Is there some way to have this re-listing listed in a place where editors who are familiar with the visual arts, with particular interest towards academic professional societies / to alert editors keen on those types of topics so they might have a chance to weigh in? I'm pretty new here, but getting the drift that these discussions can be cross-listed somehow. If there are articles I should read to learn this, I can do the work, just need a little advice on where to get started. Thanks in advance! (Pcatanese (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

• Keep OK, so for the NMC to be notable it needs two things: The first is to "have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". The NMC is probably known by about 5000 people in about 20 countries. Is this enough? There is no quantitive measure involved in the guidelines, so I only have other WP articles to go by. Let's look at some. There are many articles for different American High Schools (more than 200 in Kansas alone) in WP. Each of these are known by more than 5000 people, but most of those people are "involved", not many are outside of Kansas, and none of these schools can really claim "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". So in relative notability the NMC is ahead of (if I extrapolate correctly) at least a couple thousand articles about different US High Schools. Another example I mentioned in earlier discussion is unconfirmed brown dwarf stars, several of which have their own articles in WP. These are part of a very narrow specialty of astronomy. Far fewer than 5000 people (probably fewer than 500) will know of them (though you might get a dozen countries represented), is this "significant attention"? And with so few people involved, does that constitute "the world at large"? So compared with numbers of existing WP articles, the New Media Caucus is more notable by this standard.

The second thing that is needed is "evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention". Fair enough. Again, this isn't quantified, so we only have other WP articles to go by. So let's compare the NMC against the first high school that comes up when I search for Kansas High Schools which is Marion High School (Kansas). First we need to ask what are the sources and then we need to ask whether they are reliable and independent. The MHS article has 12 references and lists three sources. Of the twelve references, 11 are websites (the school, the City of Marion, plus database references to the school, broken links) and one is one of the three sources. The websites are substantially smaller and more auto-generated than those referenced on the NMC article. There are no mentions of the notability of MHS from any except the school's own site and the City of Marion's site (which, given that it is produced by an alumni of the High School, is not independent). Of the three sources, all are published in Marion County, Kansas, one is a self-published pamphlet from Marion, one is published by the Marion Historical Society (likely all of these authors are alumni of the High school as it is the only one in the county), and one is a gazetteer from 1902 that functions like a local newspaper. None go much beyond saying that the High School exists. So, to the extent that they say that a high school exists in Marion County KS, they should probably be considered reliable. But they are not independent. As such, their opinions on notability of a very low standard. If you go to the second high school on the search list, the results are the same. In fact nearly all the WP articles on specific high schools in Kansas are 1) less notable that the NMC; 2) more poorly sourced than the NMC article.

Next lets try Unconfirmed Brown Dwarf Stars. Going down this list, the first, Gliese 22 has no justification for notability, and its sources are only two links, both broken. So, even I, as a serious inclusionist, would fail that one. The second,HD 3346, contains two sources, neither peer-reviewed, with one source quoting the other source (which is strictly online), saying that a team of two astronomers think there might be a planet around it. I've discussed the fail of this on notability above, but now the only source is a single online mention.

My point in all this is that compared to many tens of thousands of WP articles, the NMC article shows evidence of both notability and decent sourcing. What is more, the authors are actively adding sources and, in good faith, trying to adhere to higher standards than many other articles are held to. Grhabyt (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You have made two 'keep' recommendations so you should strike one out. Your long comment above is simply an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which isn't really valid. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

comment FWIW, the stats seem to filter out duplicates. I'm still working on additional references; hard to do anything on this front during the week w/work, etc. anyway, the link you give aWP seems to have thought of everything already. (Pcatanese (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

comment Sorry, I thought the vote tally restarted after a relisting. I've unstarred my keep in the first listing (is that enough?). In terms of saying that I have an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That is part of my argument. But that shouldn't be a problem. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Which is what it seem you are doing.Grhabyt (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

comment gosh, Sionk... This editor makes a good point... Other stuff exists is not a conclusive test. Its interesting, don't you think? One of the things that occurs to me is that this notability vagueness, if applied narrowly, really starts to favor "newsworthiness" which doesnt seem to me to be the same as "encyclopediac"... Its amazing how specific discussions like these, a live fire test, if you will, of the notability "guideline" where it seems to fail its own purposes (Pcatanese (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

question so - what's the deal with "votes" in this forum exactly? I've read a bunch of different things - there's the consensus idea, which seems fundamental to WP, and then there's the votes idea, which seems pretty clear - though at odds with the consensus thing - unless its just a straw poll?(Pcatanese (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

'comment oh - thank you! this is what I meant / wasn't sure how to do this. (Pcatanese (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

comment being new here, I've been trying to come to terms with what I percieve as a fundamental flaw in the notability guidelines with regard to how to establish notability, especially in cases such as this one that involve a professsional academic society. Its been pointed out that this forum is not the correct location to lodge such arguments, though I find it difficult to understand why the "lived" editorial trenches aren't perhaps the best place to work things out. Regardless, I recently came across this note regarding the (spirit of policy) and wonder if it offers an honorable path forward in lieu of debating the merits of the notability guidelines? Namely, at the end of the day, we're still talking about an international academic professional society that has 910+ members, mostly academics and professors, who choose to contribute their energies on a volunteer basis to further the discipline and practice of new media art. This society has been recognized by the premier academic professional society in the visual arts (CAA), which is a major achievement. I agree that more references would help flesh out the article, and I hope we can all work together to find them. But this process seems time consuming for all of us, and I wonder if there might be some other path for moving forward? ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 04:33 on March 13, 2013) 04:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I think a good case for at least trying to work out the kinks is given by people like Grhabyt. The NMC is more notable than many of the minor entries on other subjects, and is of great use to rising academics, and Pcatanese makes a point regarding giving it more time and the 'spirit of the law'. I think it would be brilliant if Sionk could work with Pcatanese and Grhabyt in making the NMC entry suitable. Having people more experienced in the art of Wikipedia helping those sless so is a great service. - Patlichty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.160.39 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• comment If you Google "new media caucus" -republican -guild there are more than a thousand links. Even on page 50 of the results, most are still references to the organization in the article. These are references in people's resumes, newsletters, announcements in websites. Not the stuff of proper citations, but there certainly are a lot of them. Grhabyt (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Like you say, its all 'stuff on the internet', mentions on personal websites and CV's, anouncements on Rhizone etc. None of this makes the organization notable in the WP:GNG sense. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Part of the point of WP:GNG is that there is a trade off between number and quality. Just a couple of "golden" sources should be enough to justify notability; but low quality sources, when they number in the thousands or tens of thousands, from across the world, and over many years, do cumulatively add up to notability. Grhabyt (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

comment An organization is made up of members, isn't it? So how does one quantify participation in the group? ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 17:47 on March 14, 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sionk - Have you given any thought to the WP link I've provided above which goes into detail about this notion that "Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia."? I'm just looking for the forward path. ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 18:11 on March 13, 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• comment - in a effort to assist anyone reviewing this, I'd like to point out that several additional sources have been added to the article since the process began including ones to Leonardo, Rhizome, and the official College Art Association blog - and I am actively seeking out additional references. For example, a review of the NMC event held in partnership with the National Academy Museum in NYC is forthcoming - I'm just waiting for it to go live. Finally, while there is no mechanism to recognize that this is a 10year old, 910+ member professional academic society that has been granted affiliate status by CAA - the premier academic org (15000 members, 100 years old) - which constitutes notability -in this field-. I cannot stress enough that notability guidelines need to take into consideration the domain-level standards when possible, since those guidelines have built into them the "common sense" seeking "pillars of wp" , I hope that there could be some weight given in this regard. Anyway, I don't want to repeat all the points made earlier, but suffice to say - two other editors appear to share my views, and one does not. Attempts have been made out to reach out to wp visual arts lists that watch these proceedings via the crosslisting process, but as of yet, the number of voices and respective positions have not appreciably changed. Hoping that a decision can be reached on this soon. ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 15:34 on March 17, 2013) 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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.