Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artscape (organisation)

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. Sandstein 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artscape (organisation)[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)

Delete Notability is not inherited and while some of the exhibitions and artists garnered publicity and write-ups, there is not enough in the references to establish this organization as meeting the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By way of clarification, just about all of the references I can locate talk about the artists, works and exhibitions. They do not talk about the topic of this article which is the Artscape organization. The article fails because the references mainly fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay. What do notable organizations do? Notable things. Is the nominator actually asserting that all of those sources demonstrate that the individual exhibits are notable, but the organization that put all of them on is not? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected you didn't have a proper understanding of the criteria for establishing the notability of organizations when you moved this rejected draft into main space. Yes - that is exactly correct. The individual exhibitions may meet the criteria for notability if they meet the criteria, but that notability is not passed onto the organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I do understand WP:NOTINHERIT (since I wrote it), and the criteria. One whose last 3 2 AfD noms. were closed as Keep or No consensus might reexamine his or her own understanding of the criteria. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well cool that you wrote that, kudos! Since you wrote it, perhaps you can help me understand if I'm misinterpreting it - it appears to support exactly what I've said? Also, you're wrong about the last 3 AfDs - the last 3 AfD noms all returned Delete and of the last 200 AfD noms I've !voted on, 85% agreed with the end result (whereas you're running at 76.4%). But lets try to keep this less personal and assume good faith. Apologies for my less-than-friendly remark earlier. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I corrected my miscount above. You are misinterpreting the essay whenever you cite it as a reason for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "miscount" is still wrong. Your re-assertion of my alleged misinterpretation provides no explanation whatsoever. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you sure about that, UnitedStatesian? I mean, for instance, a painter such as Van Gogh is distinctly notable but the venues where he exhbibited his art not necessarily so. Moving on to a contemprary and possibly greater artist, how about Jeff Koons and the organisation that puts them up? Of the latter I've heard not a pip. (And, yes, on comparative artistic value I'm joking.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am asserting. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with user UnitedStatesians assertions about WP:NOTINHERIT.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; sources are primary, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see sources in English language books [1][2] without getting into Swedish ones, and can therefore assume that it is notable. And as pointed out already, the rationale for the AfD is faulty, coverage what the organisation do counts. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't in many cases. For example, an organization that provides teachers to underdeveloped regions might well rely on references that discuss the work that happens in those regions. But an organization, say, for large open-air concerts does not gain notability from the publicity surrounding said concerts (especially if there is only a mere byline "Company XXX Organizer" available in the promotional material). That is the case here. For example, this article about street art merely states "Behind the project is Artscape, the Urban Art Organization" and at the end of the article states "Artscape is an ideal association that last year made Sweden's first international street festival ever.". The reference is mainly discussing the artists and the various pieces - this type of reference does not meet the criteria for establishing notability as it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay, not policy. There is enough in the references to verify the activity of the organization (that they are behind these projects, which are then described in greater detail). ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:21, 26 December 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.