Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Art Association

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. This one is very much on the edge, and, in my opinion, leans more heavily towards delete than keep because the available sources to establish notability are tenuous. But, I don't think that consensus in this discussion is quite strong enough to delete at this point. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 14:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Art Association[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)

Run of the mill local non-profit organization. Association with artists that have their pages don't inherit the organization notability. WP:NONPROFIT, WP:NORG are relevant policies. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The Carmel Art Association has significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources and supports WP:BASIC and WP:GNG requirments.

Organizations like the Carmel Art Association, California Art Club and the Los Angeles Museum of History, Art and Science played a key role in popularizing the work of California Impressionism and the Plein-Air Painters of California.
Notable members and artists including: Jo Mora, Charles Chapel Judson , William Adam (artist), Frank Harmon Myers and Anna Althea Hills.
Founding members were notable artists including: Jennie V. Cannon and Arthur Hill Gilbert.
More than a gallery, it is a cooperative design “to advance knowledge and interest in art, and to create a spirit of fellowship between local artists and the community.” American art colonies
The Carmel Art Association can be see in hundreds of newspaper primary and secondary sources. For example, in 1927, the Oakland Tribune talks about the Carmel Art Association forming as an organization of Carmel artists who are interested in the arts. The purpose of stimulating and developing art interests in Carmel and exhibiting paintings by local artists. Carmel Art Body Forms.
Dick Crispo and Lisa crawford Watson wrote a book about the history of the Carmel Art Association. Carmel Art Association releases historic book. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC) —This user has declared a connection to the subject [1][reply]

Delete - After searching, I have to say "delete" on this article. There isn't anything that distinguishes it from the tens of thousands of of non-profit art spaces around the country (or around the world for that matter.) WP:RUNOFTHEMILL It is local in scope and coverage. That a few "notable" artists showed there is irrelevant because notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. It seems to be a pay-to-play membership-type gallery, and that always makes my skin crawl. These types of galleries are oriented towards tourism, and this one is no different judging by the fact that most of what I saw online were promoting tourism or travel to Carmel, not serious art collecting of museum quality work of art historical significance. The fact that it is the oldest gallery in Carmel isn't relevant; doesn't every town everywhere that has art galleries have an oldest one? The book that was published on it was written by one of it's artist members, so I doubt it is an independent, art historical/art critical publication. Does not meet both requirements of WP:NONPROFIT as the scope of their activities is local not national or international in scale. I'm not sure about the second requirement but for sure it doesn't pass the first criteria. Does not meet WP:CORP either. Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete There a hundreds of regional organizations that organize pay-to-exhibit shows, all conveniently run by onlinejuriedshows.com. Almost none of those are notable. I don't see that this one is all that different, but if sources exist that are not routine announcements in the local press, let's see them. Vexations (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Yes, there are several such sources: Special services theme of Art Association program and Monterey welcomes home Dali artwork. Both show significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment A paragraph in a routine announcement in the local paper is not considered significant. Please familiarize with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP means is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. From above citations and/or any external search will find it obviously does. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Greghenderson2006:, see my response to your other comment WP:AUD needs to be taken into an account and here hoping you can avoid the same argument in the future. Sources that meets all the other requirements you brought up so far and are perfectly fine for supporting contents aren't guaranteed to have any weight in supporting notability. For example, detailed history about the most notable company in the township in a local township publication. If other sources reliably establish the notability of the organization/company as suitable for global scale encyclopedia; then those local sources are good for providing details. Graywalls (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: you are a connected contributor on this article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not aware of WP:AUD. Here are some citations regarding national and international sources: Internationally famous artists; and New York visitor came to CAA; and German born artist: National Academician Amin Hansen served on board of CAA. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not quite getting what WP:AUD is saying. A source like Carmel Pine Cone, high school newsletter, neighborhood news, and like have very limited narrow audience from the point of view of a global scale project like Wikipedia. For your other sources, you don't appear to have read no inherited notability guidelines which was already said by Netherzone above. Take some time to thoroughly read those to avoid future misunderstandings. These sources you named, therefore don't raise the notability of the organization under English Wikipedia standard. Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not notable by our standards. A bit of local coverage doesn't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that this one is worth keeping. This is a Wikipedia article about an important art gallery that has a lot of history and has been written up extensively in secondary sources. Any "encyclopedia" should have a reference to this gallery and community of artists. I Just don't get your rationale. Is it possible that someone else can review it?--Greg Henderson (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: yes, "someone else can review it". Several already have, above. Anyone is free to weigh in. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006, I'll post a request at the Wikiproject Visual arts, worded neutrally to avoid WP:canvassing and WP:Forumshopping. Vexations (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- An art gallery and association that has been continuously active since the 1920s certainly isn't run-of-the-mill. And I wouldn't describe news coverage in major California cities as "local". Despite the fact other editors seem determined to delete the article at all costs, I'd suggest the original author adds sourced mentions to other Wikipedia articles, for example the fact that Salvador Dali was a member whilst living in the US. Though the gallery/association may not be notable enough to support a standalone Wikipedia article, it seems notable enough to be mentioned in relation to other subjects. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk:, it is untrue that Salvador Dali was ever a member. The org's website posts a listing of both historical and present members, and he is not listed. If he in fact was a member, they certainly would list him. Netherzone (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sionk for your comment. Netherzone Please check out: In August 2012, the CAA displayed an “historic portraits” wall featuring forty of our earliest Artist Members—mostly at work in nature or their studios. It talks about Salvador Dali who was indeed an early CAA Artist Member. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, that is a primary source, published by the CAA itself, and therefore is not a RS. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Greghenderson2006, please read WP:RS again. An organization is typically not a reliable source on itself. We strive for independent sources in depth. If you can remember to look for independent, in-depth overage in good publications, then that will serve you well in assessing sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP The following is a reliable source dealing with Dali and CAA: Monterey welcomes home Dali artwork. Here is another secondary source: about Dali and CAA. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can;t read those as they are behind a paywall.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP It is at newspapers.com. Here is an OCR version: "On July 7, a ribbon cutting took place for the first permanent West Coast Salvaidor Dali museum. Dali made the Monterey area his home for periods of time from 1941to 1948 and was deeply involved in the social art scene. Monterey was the only place outs ide of Spain where Salvador Dali lived and painted in the early 1940s. As an early Carmel Art Association Artist Member, Dali exhibited vintage-sourced photographs and gave generously of his time each May to help jury the then-annual CAA competitive art exhibition for high school students from throughout California.” --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That might be enough for your Dali claim, depending on the publication it is in. However also have a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Dali might have also liked a certain kind of car or chocolate, but that does not make the car or chocolate notable. A golf club that is newly opened and hosts the Queen as a visitor does not become notable by her visit; It would be notable by long-term coverage in reliable sources, in depth. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note There are some request edits on Carmel Art Association talk page. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Greg Henderson. This organisation has been in existence since the 1920s, far outlasting our grandiose project. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——Serial 16:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep safe to say anytime there is a suspected WP:COI editors get their feathers ruffled. "oldest gallery in Carmel and one of the oldest artists’ associations in the country" seems like our encyclopedia will be much better with the inclusion than the exclusion. Greg Henderson has produced a compelling article for keep.Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, It is a factual error that it is one of the oldest artists associations in the country. This one was founded more than a half a century later than the earliest ones, and there are many. For starters: The Wadsworth Atheneum is the oldest 1842; Portland Art Museum 1892; Copley Society of Art 1869, MacDowell Art Colony 1907, Yaddo 1900, Taos Society of Artists 1915 which morphed into the Taos Art Colony in 1898, Laguna Beach Art Association 1918, the Painter's Club of Los Angeles (1906) which morphed into the California Art League. And there are dozens of others that are older. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:

Carmel Art Association

I have a newspaper account, apologies if you do not - I am not going to research the claim of "oldest" so I yield on the claim. Regarding the news articles: I could find more but it is tiring. The CAA easily meets our guidelines - but I defer to the diligent AfD !voters. Here are a few articles that I easily found over the last hour. If I find time I will add some of these to the article.

Here is a news article which claims that the Carmel Art Association is one of the most successful galleries of its kind published in the Bakersfield Californian 1970
Here is an article about the Stanford Museum curator being elected president of the Carmel Art Association published in the Stanford Daily 1927
Here is an article about an Arabian Nights Ball that was held as a fundraiser for the CAA published in the San Mateo Times 1952
Here is an article about a Frederic Taubes lecture at CAA published in the Oakland Tribune 1950
Here is an article about the CAA holding its first exhibition in the Seven Arts Building published in the Berkeley Daily Gazette 1927
This one is just a short article/notice about a guest speaker and a $500 donation that the CAA received published in the Berkeley Daily Gazette 1927 Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one is an article about William Ritschel and how he got his start with exhibitions at the CAA published in the Ukiah Daily Journal 1995 Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the perfect example of where "local sources prove notability" becomes an issue IMO. No one can credibly claim that an article about someone donating $500 to the organization makes them notable, but somehow it's perfectly fine to cite an utterly trash source like that. No one that cites local newspapers ever actually reviews what they are citing or considers if it's trivial or not, because "Hey man, local newspapers are acceptable!" It's always purely about number of "hits" and quality doesn't matter at all. I doubt they even read the articles they cite or even their titles. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hold your horses lol. It is difficult work slogging through newspapers, and you should not cherry pick the weakest ref (in fact I should not have listed it) It may have been One Bad Apple to make your point. I did summaries - so perhaps read them again. I could clip them but it would not likely satisfy you: there are 6,124,877 articles on Wikipedia and there are many more AfDs for me to visit. I will not WP:BLUDGEON this AfD. Have a great Sunday! Lightburst (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people just see the sources and vote keep due to their meer existence without checking them. So, it should really be on the person who posts them to make sure they are usable. It's not on us that you don't have the time to review them. Per WP:THREE, pick the best three and don't waste everyone's time, including yours, on the other ones. It does't take 15 sources to establish notability anyway, it only takes a few good ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, if I found (hypothetically speaking), six sources of debatably equal quality, how I am I supposed to know which of the three are the strongest? Isn't it possible that different editors have different standards for what they consider to be strong sources? If I posted only the three articles that I thought were the strongest, isn't it possible that other editors may have thought the other three were better? Altamel (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Altamel:, Although I'm not the person you directed the question to, you could check WP:SIRS for the general idea, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources about specific sources, and for things not on that list, check archived discussions at WP:RSN. Local papers are often reliable for simple facts but often don't contribute to establishing subject notability. Opinion statements like "notable", "prominent", "respected" in local papers may not be relevant on a global scale. Graywalls (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about it from a guideline perspective is solid enough to justify keeping it and the whole "it's been around a long time" argument is a none starter IMO. Otherwise, there would be articles about any number of random trivial things "because age." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The New York Times [2] states: In 1924, 70 resident artists formed the Carmel Art Association, and the town's reputation as a center of locally produced fine art and crafts took hold. The names of articles who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, have already been mentioned. So its been around for 96 years, notable people have been members of it, and the New York Times thought them notable of mention and claimed they created the towns reputation for fine arts and crafts. Seems notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that single sentence is all that they say about the CAA in that article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its the content not the length. Dream Focus 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, Actually it is the depth. See WP:CORPDEPTH Vexations (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for achievements, not for coverage of achievements. This is why the notability guidelines are just "guidelines", not policy. You have to think for yourself. Dream Focus 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, that's not what the policy says, but out of curiosity; just what has the CAA achieved then? They have won three awards, which are not remotely notable: "Best Art Gallery in Monterey County" was given as part of the same award ceremony that als awarded Best Auto Repair and Best Car Dealership-Used. The Carmel Pine Cone awarded the CAA Best Art Gallery along with awards for Best Place for a Beer and Best Yoga Studio. I don't think those count as achievements. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:

Question: Does it help to know that:

There were world renown artists like Salvador Dalí who joined the Carmel Art Association?
Carmel Magazine has more to say about to say about Salvador Dali's time in Caramel.
Here is a blurb about how long Salvador Dali was a member. It was published in the Monterey Herald in 2018. At various times from 1941 to 1948, the artist was very involved in the social art scene, even exhibiting vintage-sourced photographs as an early Carmel Art Association Artist member.

There were quite a few notable members. WP:NOTINHERITED however we have many reliable sources throughout the century to WP:V and show that this passes WP:N Lightburst (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, 1. did you notice who made the edit that added that source?Yes, I know about Dalí. Probably more than you think, or care to give me credit for.

2. It has half a sentence : "He was a member of the Carmel Art Association at one time, "

3. That's not exactly a significant coverage, but it reinforces a point the first source makes as well: "very involved in the social art scene" and "On the social scene, he joined the Carmel Art Association". He didn't exhibit there. The connection was social, not professional.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. Vexations (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may enjoy this video from 1941. Salvador seemed like a quirky guy. While living here Dali became a member of the Carmel Art Association, collaborated with local artists and threw a legendary party. The celebrity filled, surrealist dinner was captured in a 1941 newsreel that can be found on YouTube. Ref, KAZU. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of these satisfies the notability requirements expected in WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources dropped here only reaffirms my position of strong delete. This source is a Wikipedia guidelines poster board example of "trivial mention" and the proper application of WP:NOTINHERITED. "But he would come back to the area often until 1948. He even became a member of the Carmel Art Association." It doesn't work like the advertisement industry where name dropping rules the scene. Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

storng disagree Graywalls, if you cannot read the newspapers I can clip them - i did give a one sentence summary of each. Cherry picking the weakest ref or blurb does not destroy the notability. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that there's nothing here that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, and fifty trivial mentions or namedrops still don't add up to a single bit of "significant coverage."I am also utterly indifferent to protests about "cherry picking the weakest ref." IMHO, in a deletion discussion, I want to be assured that people are arguing in good faith. If keep proponents are just tossing up a blizzard of Google hits without bothering to check if they provide substantial coverage to the subject in question, then they are at best not paying attention, and this is particularly ironic in a discussion where Delete proponents have been accused of wanting to delete this article "at all costs." Ravenswing 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Creating Carmel: the enduring vision by Harold Gilliam and Ann Gilliam has a chapter that discusses the beginnings of the organisation in sufficient depth to sustain an article (p. 148–155). My remaining objections stand; the awards section, for example, ought to just be removed.Vexations (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I generally agree with your assessment, but this source would not get past WP:AUD for justifying a stand-alone article, because it's a book that is very specific history of this township. It would be a great source for adding within the Carmel-by-Sea article. You can also find a great deal of history behind particular businesses in a neighborhood if you were to look for a book written about a neighborhood, but such business would nonetheless fail to meet notability, because the book is of limited audience, such as people researching about the township or neighborhood. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, good, point, and I did consider that the publisher is Peregrine Smith Books, which is now Gibbs Smith, and is not local (they're in Utah). Not exactly a well-respected publisher of scholarly material, but also not a vanity press. The trivia from press clippings is really a stain on the article, but my guess is that we could use the book as the core an article and supplement it with factual info from some of the newspaper clippings that don't establish notability by themselves. Note that I think much of that ought to be culled. Vexations (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can often find books from very reputable publishers that talk in great depth about obscure things if you look in subject specific books. Those things are great resources once the article subject has established notability, but field specific books would be questionable usability for establishing NOTABILITY of subject, because of the very narrow WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I looked at a scanned copy of the book online, which allowed me to see the mentions of the CAA, and it seems that the focus is on the people who were affiliated with the organization, and not about the organization itself. Wouldn't WP:NOTINHERITED apply? Netherzone (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, again, that's a good point. I think that it's fine that coverage of an organization consists mostly of descriptions of what members of the organization did when they were acting in their capacity as members. What they did otherwise has no bearing on the notability of the organization. I'm not a huge fan of NOTINEHERITED (I think it's too simplistic), and while it's often referenced in AfD, it's an essay, not a guideline or policy. WP:V rules, the GNG is (just) a guideline. The crux of what we're trying to do here, I think is to establish if there is sufficient material to create an article that is verifiable, NPOV and based on reliable, secondary sources. I think we've passed to point where we could have decided to keep the article on the presumption of notability. We now either have enough sources or not. I (barely) fall on the side that says we do, despite my reluctance over the CoI editing and other issues that afflict this article. Vexations (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:, see WP:INHERITORG, which is a subset under the NORG guidelines. It's not like making a particle board. A pile of saw dust would not be accepted in place of solid boards. Satisfying the SIRS, ORGDEPTH together with AUD requires at least large, high quality solid board so to say. Graywalls (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I think that's what I was referring to "acting in their capacity as members". When an organization does something, there's usually a person involved who performs the act. They do so in their capacity as members. Say the organization erects a building. If we have a source that says the members took on the construction of that building, then we ought to see that as "the organization doing something". But, (and this is how I read INHERITORG) If those same members then joined another organization like the National Academy, the CAA does NOT all of a sudden become affiliated with the NA. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations:, I'm not exactly following. Notability isn't inferred or imagined. "In 1927 the Carmel Art Association was formed, and the somewhat exclusive membership paid dues of one dollar per month to the association which would provide exhibition space, hire a curator, and make sales. " from https://ci.carmel.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/final_updated_carmel_historic_context_statement_091208-b.pdf so this place is a vanity gallery in a way. If Zuckerberg starts a non-profit but the non-profit does not get significant coverage, notable Zuckerberg acting as the officer couldn't be used to presume notability despite him being notable and acting on behalf of it. A sentence or two that briefly mentions "Zuckerberg started a non-profit" in numerous papers would be those breadcrumb sources. Collecting a bag full of them hoping to make the article stick is not the right idea. If the organization receives significant in-depth, wide readership, mainstream coverage because of who started it, that would be an exception. For example, a featured story in Washignton Post. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, maybe I should just try to rewrite the article? Vexations (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How it's written is the least of the problem. It's the article subject failing to meet NORG and NONPROFIT. Rewriting it does not change this. Graywalls (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. -Hatchens (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Gilliam, Ann; Gilliam, Harold (1992). Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books (Gibbs Smith). pp. 152–154. ISBN 0-87905-397-6. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Edwards, Robert W. (2012). "Chapter Seven – Carmel's New Identity: the Peninsula's Art Colony (1915-1933)" (PDF). Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, vol. one, East Bay Heritage Project, Oakland, 2012. Oakland: East Bay Heritage Project. ISBN 978-1-4675-4567-9. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Watson, Lisa Crawford (2004-03-04). "Sculpting connections". The Monterey County Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Robinson, Jill (2016-11-23). "Touring art havens, old and new". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-19. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Owens, Tom; Hall, Julia M. (2000). The Insiders' Guide to the Monterey Peninsula: Including Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove, & Pebble Beach. Guilford, Connecticut: Falcon Publishing (Globe Pequot Press). p. 177. ISBN 1-57380-117-8. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Hill, Kathleen Thompson; Hill, Gerald N. (2001). Monterey and Carmel: Eden by the Sea. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-7627-0914-4. Retrieved 2020-08-03.

Sources with quotes

Gilliam, Ann; Gilliam, Harold (1992). Creating Carmel: The Enduring Vision. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books (Gibbs Smith). pp. 152–154. ISBN 0-87905-397-6. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The book notes:
With Spunk And Pep

Again, as in 1905, artists felt the need to organize. In August of 1927 nineteen of them, including the omnipresent DeNeale Morgan, created the Carmel Art Association. Like its predecessor, the Arts and Crafts Club, the new association was a cooperative.
The association's founders had "plenty of spunk and pep," as the Pine Cone noted, and within a few months had rented and refurbished a room on the top floor of Bert Heron's Seven Arts Building, engaged a curator, and held a show of works by forty participating artists. Following the arts-and-crafts tradition, they enlivened the Carmel scene with teas and other fund raisers, including Bohemian balls to which—as historian Betty Hoag McGlynn writes—members were asked to bring their own beer steins.
Despite these efforts, money was scarce, particularly after the onset of the Depression in 1929, and the association was soon forced to give up its gallery in the Seven Arts Building. For several years exhibits were held at the Denny-Watrous Gallery while the artists struggled to raise money to buy a gallery of their own. In 1931 came an event that turned the tide, a show by the four National Academicians who were members of the Carmel Art Association: marine artist William Ritschel; Paul Dougherty, Ritschel's neighbor in the Highlands who also painted the ocean and shoreline; Armin Hansen, who portrayed the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen of Monterey Bay; and Arthur Hill Gilbert, whose favorite subject was the California landscape, particularly its oaks and grasslands. Entrance to the National Academy of Design has always been one of the highest honors to which American artists can aspire. Even though the show made a profit of only $9.95, Carmelites were impressed that their art association included such nationally honored members, and community support began to increase rapidly.
Within two years, the organized artists felt secure enough to make a daring move. They went into debt to buy the Dolores Street studio that had belonged to playwright-artist Ira Remsen and then converted it into a gallery. With its customary élan, the association proceeded to pay off its mortgage by means of a series of imaginative fund-raising events. ...
Edwards, Robert W. (2012). "Chapter Seven – Carmel's New Identity: the Peninsula's Art Colony (1915-1933)" (PDF). Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, vol. one, East Bay Heritage Project, Oakland, 2012. Oakland: East Bay Heritage Project. ISBN 978-1-4675-4567-9. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The book notes:
There are two frequently repeated assumptions about the CAA: first, that it was casually born in early August of 1927 as a result of the “optimistic” description of the Laguna Beach Art Association given by Ada B. Champlin to a group of local artists at Grey Gables; and second, that the CAA, despite various financial vicissitudes, simply blossomed into the thriving organization that we have today.²⁶² However, the facts offer a picture of a sharply divided organization which in its early years nearly collapsed on several occasions. It should be remembered that the CAA did not incorporate for six and half years, while the Carmel Arts and Crafts Club incorporated as a non- profit within fifteen months after its founding and the Laguna Beach Art Association was incorporated twenty-one months after it was established. The antecedents of the CAA can be traced back to events that occurred several years earlier.
...
Decisive measures taken at the October 3rd CAA meeting dramatically reversed the fortunes of the fledgling organization. Following Cannon’s lead the membership committee “agreed to go to every artist on the Peninsula and ask for support.”³⁰⁰ They extended “charter membership” until November 1st and opened it for the first time to “all of the Peninsula artists.” After it was decided to launch the CAA’s Inaugural Exhibition on October 15th the applications for membership dramatically increased. Ralph D. Miller, Homer Emens and Charles C. Judson were appointed to hang the paintings.301 Beyond the twenty-five percent commission for the curator, it was decided to subtract an additional five percent from the sale of all art for the maintenance and rent of the gallery.³⁰² When the Kingsley Art Club of Sacramento asked to stage an exhibition of CAA artists, the request was sent to Corrigan and Lemos. On the official notice for the opening of the CAA art gallery was the list of elected officers with the name of the president, Pedro Lemos, prominently at the top.³⁰³ The only problem was that Lemos had not been seen in Carmel since August 15th and many outside the CAA were beginning to wonder why.
Watson, Lisa Crawford (2004-03-04). "Sculpting connections". The Monterey County Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
On the afternoon of Aug. 8, 1927, 19 Carmel artists met at "Gray Gables," the home of artists Josephine Culbertson and Ida Johnson, to establish an association for "the advancement of art and cooperation among artists.
"The new Carmel Art Association has plenty of spunk and pep," wrote the editor of the Carmel Pine Cone newspaper at the time. "And, if its vivacity can be directed properly, it ought to be a good thing for Carmel."
More than 75 years later, it's all good. The association, whose juried membership numbers close to 180, continues to celebrate the heritage and the future of an organization whose vision has been and continues to be to maintain a permanent gallery within Carmel-by-the-Sea; to advance the knowledge of and interest in art, and to create a spirit of cooperation and fellowship between local artists and the public at large.
That spirit is alive and well among the association artists, particularly the sculptors, who continue to meet in private homes to foster and maintain their relationship to art, to Carmel, to one another and to plan exhibits through which to share this connection with the community.
Robinson, Jill (2016-11-23). "Touring art havens, old and new". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-19. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
I pass my hands over stacks of illustrations and paintings, searching for the right item to bring home from the Carmel Art Association Gallery. The oldest gallery in Carmel, it holds the work of more than 100 artists living on the Monterey Peninsula, and I must be touching at least half of that. Brightly colored paintings are displayed on the wall distract me.
The Carmel Art Association, a nonprofit organization owned and operated by artists, was founded in 1927. Many of its early members were among great early California artists, including Armin Hansen, William Ritschel, Paul Dougherty, Mary DeNeale Morgan, Percy Gray, Francis McComas, E. Charlton Fortune, John O’Shea and even Salvador Dalí.
Owens, Tom; Hall, Julia M. (2000). The Insiders' Guide to the Monterey Peninsula: Including Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove, & Pebble Beach. Guilford, Connecticut: Falcon Publishing (Globe Pequot Press). p. 177. ISBN 1-57380-117-8. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The book notes:
Carmel Art Association
Dolores St. and 5th Ave., Carmel
(831) 624-6176

Started in 1927 by a group of local artists, the Carmel Art Association is still an active and vibrant force in the community. Members have included such dignitaries as Armin Hansen, William Ritschel, Arthur Hill Gilbert, Paul Dougherty, Francis McComas, and John O'Shea. Made up of several gallery rooms exhibiting the works of some of the more than 120 artist members, the Carmel Art Association deserves a spot on your gallery tours. Exhibits change monthly, and lectures, demonstrations and openings are often open to the public. Call for details about special programs.
Hill, Kathleen Thompson; Hill, Gerald N. (2001). Monterey and Carmel: Eden by the Sea. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-7627-0914-4. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The book notes:
As you leave Highland, turn right (south) and you immediately come to the beautiful sculpture garden introducing you to the highly respected Carmel Art Association Galleries. The eighty-year-old institution serves as unifier and artistic home to Carmel's artists. The association is owned and run by more than 120 local artists who exhibit their fine work in all media here at Carmeľs oldest gallery. Manager Janet Howell and friends are extremely hospitable and informative. This is where you find the work of true, actively practicing local artists.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carmel Art Association to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
I consider the coverage in the Salt Lake City-based publisher Peregrine Smith Books (Gibbs Smith) to satisfy the "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" requirement. I do not consider a book published by Gibbs Smith to be "local media, or media of limited interest and circulation". Had the book been for a limited audience, it would have been published by a local publisher, not a publisher in a different American state.
The Robert W. Edwards book published by East Bay Heritage Project covers Carmel Art Association in substantial detail and proves through its numerous citations that Carmel Art Association has been covered substantially by local media.
There is enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard:, I am not going to take the time to review each and every source you have listed, however having looked at #5, I strongly disagree that this source having any meaningful weight in reliable, independent source in the context of establishing notability and I am unsure why you continue to list out sources like this in arguments in opposition of deletion that is being nominated on notability ground. Looking in the source, it's a mere entry in a travel guide that lists numerous businesses, and a paragraph or so of description to each location, so just like an eater's guide. I would say that it's accurate for verifying the address and phone number, at the time of its publication, absolutely nothing for establishing global notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe Pequot Press book published in 2000 says of Carmel Art Association: "Started in 1927 by a group of local artists, the Carmel Art Association is still an active and vibrant force in the community Members have included such dignitaries as [list of dignitaries]." This can be used to verify that even 73 years after its founding, the association is still a strong part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, art community. I listed it as the fifth source because:

it does not provide as much coverage as the earlier sources in the list and
its content contributes to notability even though, because it is short, it does not establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the resources availability, the non-profit organization seems notable.DMySon 18:16, 3 August 2020 (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.