Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cork 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Cork Caucus

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable event or event-series that fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. I've spent some time, as part of a WP:BEFORE, seeking and reviewing sources to help improve this article. I cannot. And so am left with AfD. Most of the refs in the article (many of which I'm not sure even ARE refs and may just be ELs formatted as refs) do not even support the text. Not to mind supporting notability. In terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, all I can find are the passing-mentions I've already added. Which do not add up to notability. The only coverage that I can even consider contributing is that single book (Cork Caucus : on art, possibility and democracy ). But this doesn't seem to be independent and (even if it were) I don't see how it, alone, confirms notability. In terms of WP:NEVENT, while the "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cork_Caucus&oldid=1143408299#Legacy legacy]" section appears to try and set out some lasting impact/relevance claims (which might help with WP:LASTING), the section is not supported by a single verifiable/reliable/independent reference. If I pared back the article to what can be supported it would be a DICDEF/sub-stub. That the article was quite promotional from the outset does little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable event, meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage Note:
 * COTTER, L. Cork Caucus: Where Do We Go from Here? Circa: Art Magazine, [s. l.], n. 113, p. 56–61, 2005. DOI 10.2307/25564343. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=505162962&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 7 mar. 2023.
 * PACKER, M. [Cork Caucus]. Irish Arts Review, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 1, p. 135–136, 2009. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=505412540&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 7 mar. 2023.
 * WILSON, M. Terms of Art and Tricks of Trade: A Critical Look at the Irish Art Scene Now. Third Text, [s. l.], v. 19, n. 5, p. 535–543, 2005. DOI 10.1080/09528820500232470. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=505147115&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 7 mar. 2023.
 * It is easy to verify notability using the wikipedia library. I've started article improvements and more will follow. CT55555 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. With thanks for your note above, and the identification of additional sources (such as Cotter (2005) and Lerm-Hayes & Walters (2011)), I would note that some didn't immediately support the nearby text. And, apart from Cotter, don't all deal with the subject as a primary topic. Packer (2008), for example, appears to be a book review of one of the linked sources, and not direct coverage of the topic itself(?) And Wilson (2005) appears to be an essay on the art scene in Ireland generally in 2005 which perhaps affords (max?) 10% of the text to the subject here. Certainly it isn't the primary topic of Wilson's piece. If you can add the other source you mention, and if they do (as expected/suggested) "easily verify notability", then I'll be delighted to self-close nom as withdrawn. Right now I'm still not seeing it though. Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article needed improvements and me adding citations that didn't solve all of the sourcing gap is besides the point. There is no rule that significant coverage requires the source to be mostly about the topic, it's ok for it to be 10% about the subject if it is significant coverage (I quote from WP:SIGCOV ... does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) I should not need to add the sources to the article, I need only establish that the topic is notable to make a valid keep !vote. I did not suggest that the list above is exhaustive. Your comment is setting the bar too high, the onus was on editors nominating things for deletion to do the searches WP:BEFORE. CT55555 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hiya. Thanks so much for responding. RE: "onus on editors nominating to do searches". You are 100% correct. And I probably didn't look enough outside mainstream/news/related sources, and so overlooked the Cotter (2005) and Lerm-Hayes & Walters (2011) sources that you helpfully highlighted. Thanks again! RE: "should not need to add more sources to article". Apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking you to add to the article. Rather to mention here. To see if they were of similar to the Cotter (2005) and Lerm-Hayes & Walters (2011). As, if WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE were met, I'd just withdraw the nom. Obviously no obligation/expectation. RE: "doesn't need to be main topic". You are, of course, correct. I guess my point was simply that many of the sources, like Wilson (2005), represent transient coverage that is 'of the time'. And don't really help much with WP:SUSTAINED. Anyway, this is why I opened the AfD. To prompt discussion. Personally I still don't see this as clearly notable (black/white). And, the shade of grey that I perceive is perhaps much darker.... Anyway, absent an AtD (like a redirect to a National Sculpture Factory article, given that the seems like a "WP:PRODUCT" of that org), I'm still not sure that notability/GNG/NEVENT is clearly demonstrated for a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and for the tone of it. I've looked again and actually you are correct that it is less black and white than I stated. When I read further into the sources that I found on Wikipedia Library, they are not sufficiently robust to add to what is already mentioned supporting notability. And indeed the issues of independence and one of my sources being a book review of a non-independent book that was produced about the event are correct.
 * I did note in my searches a handful of book authors who are quoting what I think are essays produced at the event, or after the event, that appear in that book. That might not be the clearest example of WP:PERSISTENCE. Noting academic sources, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent and books covering the event appears WP:DIVERSE to me.
 * I am undecided if I should adjust my !vote to a weak keep. My thinking is:
 * Quality of sources: Borderline weak keep/keep
 * PERSISTENCE/SUSTAINED: weak keep
 * DIVERSE: keep
 * CT55555 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep This event meets the guideline for WP:EVENTCRIT, and has WP:LASTING coverage. The event continues to be referenced in publications. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage appears to me to meet WP:GNG. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  // Timothy :: talk  12:03, 15 March 2023 (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.