Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Society of Arts and Letters


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

National Society of Arts and Letters

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no references establishing the notability of this entity. - Biruitorul Talk 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appropriate response to lack of references would ordinarily be adding a "find refs" template or similar to the article, not AFD. That said, here are some facts that suggest to me, at least, that the organization is notable.
 * The article is fairly lengthy -- not at all a stub -- and discusses many recipients and people involved who are themselves notable (as defined by having wikipedia articles). The organization was founded in 1944 and has, apparently, numerous chapters, suggesting both that it's not transient and that a lot of people have been involved in it over time.
 * in terms of Google tests, 2 (including the second) of the first 10 google hits on the acronym are the organization, which isn't bad for an acronym organization. And straight-up google hits on "national society of arts and letters" generates 73,000 hits.  Of the first several pages I browsed I saw numerous references to press coverage of the organization or its various chapters.  See, e.g., boca raton tribune, dunkirk NY observer, st louis public radio, el paso inc, etc.
 * Seems sufficiently notable to me, at least to merit a "put cites in" template.
 * --Lquilter (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible the group is notable, but we can't keep unreferenced material lying around forever, and twenty-one months is rather a long wait. Moreover, the burden of demonstrating notability lies on those wishing to keep the article.
 * The fact that they've held fundraisers/musicals/banquets/competitions and managed to have that feature in the local paper does not in itself provide evidence of notability: the sources are unquotable, to begin with. We'd need some references about the organization itself: history, purpose, structure, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI -- The "burden" policy you cite refers to quotations or material challenged/likely to be challenged, i.e., controversial claims. It is not a general burden-of-evidence requirement for notability. --Lquilter (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

--Lquilter (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Biruitorul. Hmm.  WP:N: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.  If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.  Place a  tag on the article to alert other editors.  If the article is about a specialized field, use the  tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online. If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.[7]".
 * The sources tag was added this month (July 2012), which hasn't given anyone much time or notice to find sources;
 * The article creator wasn't notified about the AFD (I took care of that, though);
 * You mentioned that the local paper sources I adduced weren't "quotable". Could you explain what you mean and why you think so?
 * Seems to me that a bit more good-faith work needs to be done here before deleting the article.
 * As for assessing the notability, WP:NONPROFIT says notability exists if (a) scope is national or international; AND (2) verifiable by multiple sources. Additional factors include longevity, etc.  We have national scope and significant longevity.  With about two minutes' worth of googling, I showed multiple sources reporting on the group's various activities.  So that meets WP:NONPROFIT criteria for notability, "verifiable by multiple sources".
 * --Lquilter (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a few more notations indicating notability:
 * 5700+ references in google books, including people listing participation in the organization as well as awards from the organization;
 * The organization and many of its chapters have an entry in the Encyclopedia of Associations, the primary tertiary source on the subject.
 * By "unquotable", I simply mean there's nothing in those articles we could quote in an encyclopedic article about the NSAL. What usable material would there be? "NSAL Boca Raton held a musical fundraiser in May 2010"? "NSAL Chautauqua has held a voice and art competition since 2010"? "A discussion about NSAL was held on St. Louis public radio in January 2012"? "NSAL held a banquet at its convention in May 2012, attended by some rather garish-looking people"? As I hope you can see, this is all trivia that we would never normally notice.
 * As I've said, NSAL may be notable, but let's have those "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" specified by WP:NONPROFIT. Google hits are not sources; they may or may not say something useful. Who has actually written about NSAL, not simply to note that they have handed X or Y a prize? Is a listing in the Encyclopedia of Associations, a directory-like work many hundreds of pages long, automatic confirmation that every entity listed there is notable? I would say there is still some work to be done if this article is to be saved. - Biruitorul Talk 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're agreed that there is work to be done on citations. Notability is a different question.  Are we agreed that notability is resolved by the evidence? --Lquilter (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound uncollegial, but no, I have so far seen none of the "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" required by WP:NONPROFIT criterion 2. Indeed, I have to wonder if these exist. Searching for "Sierra Club" 1892 gives tons of usable material confirming that group was set up in that year. Searching for "National Society of Arts and Letters" 1944 gives just a smattering of results, which are not only snippets (and thus not really usable, since we can't analyze the context) but also not independent: published by them, taken from Congressional testimony by them, etc. I used this measurement since one would expect, at a minimum, that a reference about NSAL would give its founding date.
 * So I ask once again: where are the specific sources (multiple, third-party, independent, reliable) about NSAL? Not Google hits, not speculation, but actual references that could be used to write an article. - Biruitorul Talk 18:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I referenced these: boca raton tribune, dunkirk NY observer, st louis public radio, el paso inc, etc. as examples of press coverage to establish the notability of the organization. Which is what this AfD is about -- notability.  As to finding press and scholarly references about the organization, that is, frankly, often challenging for non-profit organizations, as it is for, say, academics.  Being the subject of press and scholarship is biased towards sports, entertainment, and politics.  Which is why we have various subject-specific notability guidelines.  Such as WP:NONPROFIT's alternate pathway to notability: scope (national or international) and verifiable by multiple sources.  Additional factors can include longevity among others.  Done, done, done.  Can you please explain how this organization does not meet WP:NONPROFIT in (a) scope and (b) verifiability in multiple sources? --Lquilter (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that they can't be used in an actual article on NSAL, I'm not sure what good those four links do. Sure, they help establish NSAL exists and that it undertakes activities, but WP:NONPROFIT requires sources " about the organization and its activities". We don't have that, and we need it if we're going to keep.
 * It's true that we have different criteria for different subjects. But even WP:NONPROFIT can only be stretched so far. If the sources about NSAL aren't there, bias or not, that's a powerful reason not to keep.
 * You mention longevity. To me, the fact that this group has been around for 68 years and that, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to write about it as such, indicates a lack of notability. After all, even if there's a press bias toward "sports, entertainment, and politics" (there may be; there's certainly no scholarly bias in those directions), no one has compelled journalists and academics from writing barely a substantive word on NSAL in the last 68 years. - Biruitorul Talk 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you say these articles can't be used as references. You've asserted that several times, but can you please justify your assertions?  Surely if one were discussing the sorts of activities the organization engages in, one could use these press sources as cites for those activities.
 * More importantly, I think you are fundamentally confusing the issues here.
 * (1) This is a discussion of deletion, based on notability of the organization. References and other criteria are used to establish notability.
 * (2) Article content must also be referenced.
 * Now, the requirements for references for (1) notability and (2) article content are, of course, overlapping and mutually supportive. And, one presumes, often the same references might suffice for both requirements.  But they are in fact separate requirements.  For instance, individual and organizational websites suffice to source some kinds of basic facts; however, they do not establish notability.  And on the flip side, existence in a third-party tertiary source (e.g., an encyclopedia, such as the Encyclopedia of Associations I mentioned above) helps to establish notability, but should very rarely (almost never) be used as a source in the article.
 * Here, we have sufficient cites to establish notability -- local press coverage plus national scope together establish notability per WP:NONPROFIT. The longevity is an additional criteria that is supportive, as is the organization's inclusion in the preeminent reference on the subject, the Encyclopedia of Associations.  That does not mean, of course, that these citations would suffice to source the article itself.  But they do suffice to establish its notability.
 * I hope this clarifies the relationship between WP:N (specifically WP:NONPROFIT) and WP:V. If, however, you are still unpersuaded, then it appears we have a 1:1 deadlock.  In that case, I hope that (a) we will get some other opinions, and (b) inclusion of the citations-needed templates will help the article over time, as they are intended to do. --Lquilter (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, as I previously stated, the organization has had participation by and awards to many notable people (linked in the article itself), which is further suggestive of the organization's notability; it was basically founded by high-society women in the mid-1940s and got a lot of movement and momentum from that founding, which, apparently, continues. As for additional press sources, the website lists an additional press source, Washington Post, April 16, 1946, covering a 1946 convention of the organization presided over by First Lady Bess Truman.  --Lquilter (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now linked the NSAL article from some of its references within Wikipedia pages on various artists / entertainers. See Special:WhatLinksHere.  Note, I haven't added the references in; just linked pre-existing references included by other editors.  You know, there were more than 20 internal references already existing, just using the formal organizational name, and I haven't even looked for acronyms or mis-spellings.  See WP search.   I really want to beg editors to properly search Wikipedia before they propose AfDs -- simply go to the search page and try some variants of the organization name to see if it is being elsewhere referenced.  That's sometimes one of the best and easiest ways to see if an awarding or membership organization is notable. --Lquilter (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also added a few references within the article to non-controversial facts (e.g., awards received by someone notable, mentioned in brief biographies on their own websites or on other professional sources). There are honestly quite a lot of these sorts of things. I have just selected a few in an ad hoc fashion. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep In my opinion satisifies both requirements of WP:NONPROFIT per LQs refs above. Even if we were to decide that the available sources do not satisfy requirement 2, we should still keep this article. WP:NONPROFIT is a guideline only, and we need to apply common sense. This is an organisation that has been in existence for many years, has made many awards to artists who have gone on to become famous (that's where a lot of the search hits come from). In short they have had an impact. Now if an interested person looks up the body that made the award and draws a blank on Wikipedia, that does not reflect very well on our ambition to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. It is difficult to find quotable material but in this case that just means it's difficult, not that the subject is not notable. Mcewan (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lquilter (and Mcewan), I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but let me reiterate one point. When I call the links you brought up "unquotable", I don't mean that literally. There would be two ways we could quote them, neither of them very satisfactory. The first would be to say what they say, for instance "NSAL Boca Raton held an afternoon tea at a country club in March 2012". But that's trivia, the type of local event never picked up by this encyclopedia. The second would be to say something more expansive than what the original source says, to take a trivial example like that and use it to claim something meaningful. I see you've done just that, using an article on an afternoon tea to help support the claim that NSAL "assist[s] promising young artists through arts competitions, scholarships and other career opportunities". That looks like synthesis or original research to me.
 * And a mayoral proclamation, really? Yes, I know that technically, WP:PSTS allows primary sources for verification of simple facts, but for an organization the notability of which is immediately and readily apparent, we'd never have to use something like that. There would be references of higher quality and no need to stretch the limits of WP:RS. - Biruitorul Talk 22:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely, one could use the cites above in unsatisfactory ways; but to support statements that describe its various chapters' activities and contests, a "see, e.g., A, B, C" reference seems just fine to me. I doubt we disagree on the merits of how to use particular refs. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that there are organizations whose notability is immediately and readily apparent. But not all organizations that are notable get the sort of press / scholarly attention that makes it easy to find references.  Even without those, an org. can be notable, as this one appears to me to be. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the dearth of reliable sources for the main activities (at least recent ones). And I don't want to see trivia in there. And to be honest I can see a valid argument per the letter of policy for deletion. However I think that this case is very different from most notability-based AfDs, simply because of the longevity of the organisation, and its widespread impact (evidenced by the number of now-famous artists who have benefitted). No one wants to see unsourced promotional material in the encyclopedia and policy is rightly vigorous in this regard. However my sincere belief is that this is a different case for which it is valid to ignore some rules. I also think that those elusive reliable sources could emerge over time from analog sources.  Mcewan (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a well known org among the literati in U.S. Opportunidaddy (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2012 (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.