Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ but without prejudice against moving.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

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

The NFAH does not have any identity distinguishable from its suborganizations (i.e. no one is directly employed by it), and as such cannot possibly meet NORG. It also doesn't work as a list, since the agency only has four subagencies; the content about the Federal Council membership should be split off in to an article about FCAH, as that is notable. The page title should redirect to a new stub about the law which founded the agency, which is notable. Mach61 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Politics,  and United States of America. Mach61 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Move While I'm pretty sure you could find sigcov somewhere among the thousands of media mentions, I'd be happy if this was moved to National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 and somebody filled out the rest of the article. As it stands, the page serves as an important disambiguator, as frequently when media or another source refers to the foundation, they're actually referring to the NEA or NEH, and it's a tossup as to which they're referring to. Star Garnet (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Or one could read books. Uncle G (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that there's a 103-page book on the subject ( cited in the article), which gives historical background such as what Johnson said about the Foundation when signing the act into law. But it turns out that there's a 312-page book from a university press on the subject, that has all of the congresspeople involved, the presidents, the politics (including Johnson's choice of timing), the proposals, and the objections.  The existence of the former seals the fate of this as most definitely a stub that can be expanded, no deletion, no renaming; but if that were the sole overview it would need some technical supporting sources because Sawyer (according to xyr Cengage biography) specializes in writing about history for children.  There are Congressional reports from the 1970s and 1980s and other stuff that could be used to bolster such an article.  However,  is the kind of source, a university press book from a historian at CSU, that makes composing an article from "media mentions" seem entirely silly.  And yes, it discusses the idea that there be "a dual arts and humanities foundation, thus directly linking the arts with liberal education".  The book isn't about solely the NEA, and it doesn't even reach 1965 until chapter 3. Uncle G (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't read Binkiewicz, but for Sawyer, the two sections that discuss the NFAH (per the index) in fact discuss the act that created it. Mach61 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Having gained access to Binkiewicz, I also don't see any SIGCOV there of the NFAH, only the act. Mach61 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When it (for example) talks about John Ryan (of the PFT) and William S. Moorhead it is quoting their views on why a national humanities foundation should exist and what it should do, not analysing an Act. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Plenty of analytical coverage over the years e.g.   . Perhaps, as  suggests, the organic act is more notable than the organization, but even with a page move, much of the existing verbiage should be retained.  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: in hindsight, I really should have created a stub about the law and put in a requested merge. Mach61 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 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.