Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open House Arts Collective


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Open House Arts Collective

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is, by its own admission, an informal grouping started in 2008. There is no evidence of notability and what few third-party sources are listed, none are beyond the local, including a university paper  freshacconci  talk talk  01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   — freshacconci  talk talk  01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a formal organization that has been the subject of coverage from the following reliable, independent secondary sources:
 * CBC Radio 2's Ontario Morning (provincial)
 * 94.9 CHRW (regional)
 * Western Gazette at the University of Western Ontario (local)
 * Two Way Monologues (national - online)
 * The organization has also existed in an alternate formal arrangement since at least April 4, 2007 and has expanded from the Viking Swimmers of 1926, who were active as recently as November 20, 2008, into the Open House Arts Collective.

Stuartathompson (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Comment The above references are essentially the London Free Press and University of Western Ontario paper. The other links are for the band OOlenka and the Autumn Lovers, and one link above just goes to the Open House Arts Collective article. So, no, there are no third-party sources beyond the trivial for Open House Arts Collective itself.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those links actually just go back to the article (1 & 2). They seem to be attempt to link to an MP3 file, which again, is not a source. #5 is a dead link.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable group. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Source (1) is an audio interview with CBC Radio 1. Source (2) is an audio interview with 94.9 CHRW radio. Interviews on radio programs qualify as sources, as do provincially-broadcast programs on national radio networks. A Wikipedia linking error requires you copy and paste these links to properly access the audio file. Source (5) is a verifiable factual link to the existence of the related Viking Swimmers of 1926; please take a moment to scroll down to see the relevant information, the link is not broken. Source (6) confirms these groups are related. Source (7) is verifiable third-party evidence that the related group, from which Open House was created, was active as recently as November 2008.Stuartathompson (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Comment Please note in source (4), Krakus discuses both the Collective and its association with the Viking Swimmers of 1926 in the third-last question. Stuartathompson (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Comment No one is doubting that this group exists. The sources do not appear to be about the group in question. To be establish notability, sources need to be non-trivial, third-party sources and should be about Open House Arts Collective, not a previous group. Even of these sources were about Open House Arts Collective, they do not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:V at this point.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And I must say, as a board member and especially the media representative of Open House Arts Collective, you shouldn't be creating an article about a group you are affiliated with per WP:COI. You have a vested interest to promote the group and ensure the article remains.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:COI's concerns are with neutral point of view, monetary gain, neutral tone, and associated notions of bias or manipulation. Information provided above is neutral and factual. The organization is not-for-profit. There is no benefit for personally editing this article or supplementing the deletion discussion. No attempt has been made to withhold or disguise any identity. Moreover, I neither created this article nor maintain it, though I have made factual and organizational changes and added appropriate links, and was notified of this deletion by the first poster in this discussion. Associations with the Viking Swimmers of 1926 have been made clear to counter the original claim that the group "started in 2008" when this is not entirely the case. Stuartathompson (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Comment Of course you created the article: it's in the article's history. And the first poster was you. Being a non-profit does not negate the conflict of interest situation. As the media representative of the group, it's in your interest to promote the group. It's as simple as that. Money has nothing to do with it (although, as a non-profit, you could be eligible for government funding where a higher profile would be valuable, but that's beside the point). As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what any of that actually refers to. In any case, you should be careful when creating article about groups you are involved with. It's not up to you to decide if the article is neutral. Your involvement already calls that into question.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article replaced Open house arts collective (without capitals). The article that was originally Open house arts collective and written by another author was pasted it into Open House Arts Collective (with capitals) for search functionality purposes, adding a redirect to Open house arts collective Open House Arts Collective, which is also in the history. WP:COI's goal is to ensure authors "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." Personal gain is incidental to this goal and participation in this discussion benefits Wikipedia by providing sources and information that may be otherwise unavailable or difficult to find.
 * Comment Of course, there was no way for me to know about the page move (the history merely states that you "created" this article). As for the rest, the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines are clear: you are to exercise caution when creating, editing and participating in deletion discussions about subjects that you are connected to. I never once said that your participation did not benefit Wikipedia, but it must be made clear that you do have an invested interest in this article as I've stated above. This is all a distraction, however, since a reliably sourced article is not presently evident. As for neutrality, that's for others to decide, as you cannot possibly make that judgement.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Gazette story seems to be substantial coverage. They have signed numerous acts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, a profile in a university paper does not constitute significant coverage. As for signing numerous acts, their principle claim to notability is as an arts collective. Perhaps a merge into the article for Olenka and the Autumn Lovers as a record label would be appropriate.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Significant coverage as defined by WP:N does not require certain size of circulation, reach, or prominence to be considered significant, and where these factors may contribute, they are understood to be relative to the scope of the article in question; in this case, the organization serves this publication's constituency. The article does "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" and "is more than trivial." Further, as a newspaper, it is a secondary source beholden to standards of objectivity and neutrality and is considered reliable according to WP:N's definitions. The interview with CBC Radio 1's Ontario Morning meets all criteria for WP:N, falls within its criteria of "works in all forms and media" and may fulfill a more liberal definition of "significant coverage." Stuartathompson (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Stuartathompson
 * Comment Please read the notability requirements for organizations. This is not substantial coverage. A profile in a university newspaper, an article in the local paper and an interview on the radio, which at this point is unclear as it's not used in the article (i.e. not quoted or referred to). The interview appears to be about the band's singer. Again, this is not a discussion about the notability of the band, but the arts organization and so far, sources do not appear to be beyond the trivial at this point. The organization has been around for less than a year. In a year or two, if more sources are established, the article can be recreated (should it be deleted). But as it stands, notability has not been established.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please listen to the CBC Radio 1 interview before commenting on its content. It is, in its entirety, about the organization, and only makes incidental reference to the interviewee's band. It is a program on a national network broadcast provincially and meets all qualifications under both WP:N and organizations. The organization formed under its current title in 2008 but has existed since at least April 4, 2007 as the Viking Swimmers of 1926. This association attempts to nullify arguments against its perceived short lifespan by drawing an evidential, sourced timeline extending back several years. Stuartathompson (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson


 * Delete The article is categorized as a record label, effectively, and has still to release its first recording. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Article categories have now been supplemented to properly reflect this article. Stuartathompson (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Well if it has actually done anything in any area, this is not reflected in the article. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The organization has been approved by the London Arts Council of the City of London. Stuartathompson (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Comment I don't understand the relevence of this information. No one is questioning the existence of the group. And adding that they are "recognized" by the London Arts Council in the article is quite awkward. A municiple arts council funds all sorts of groups. In and of itself this is not an establishment of notability by Wikipedia standards.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This information was added to supplement third-party secondary sources and was not intended to establish notability in and of itself. The City of London Arts Council individually approves organizations for inclusion. Some groups, especially those of local interest, appear to base their notability on associations with the city government and arts councils such as these (ex. Grand Theatre, Ontario). (Though it's somewhat unclear how the Grand Theatre, Ontario has established notability.) Stuartathompson (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * As for Grand Theatre, Ontario, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The radio interviews are good sources, and I see nothing wrong with using a university paper as a source for uncontroversial facts.  Seems notable to me. JulesH (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the radio interviews are terrible sources as we are asking too much of the reader to cut and paste the link into a new window and then listen to the entire interview to see if it's really about the subject of the article. The onus is on the editor who provided the source to incorporate the source into the article better. As its stands, it's an interview with the singer of a band. So what if she mentions this group? By definition that makes it an unreliable third-party source. When did this interview take place? On what show? What was the context of the interview? We're given nothing and the editor glibbly tells us to listen to the interview. And university newspaper articles are fine, but not in an article with so few sources to begin with. We have a local paper, a university paper and an ambiguous (at best) radio interview. By WP:N standards this is not substantial. We need more third-party sources to establish notability. If they do not exist, then the article should be deleted. And the conflict of interest is still a major issue that has not been addressed except in the most dismissive way by the editor in question. We may need to take this further for administrative comment.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's link malfunction only occurs in this discussion; the link works properly in the article. Adjustments have been made to reference these interviews as additional information rather than inline citations to remove obligations from readers to seek out direct references. Dates have been added to these sources. Not to belabour the point, but the CBC Radio 1 interview, in its entirety, references only the organization this article pertains to, and not the artist, her work, or her music -- these are incidental. This interview addresses the subject of this article directly and in detail. Radio interviews may be less convenient than text, but they are, especially in the case of the CBC, authoritative third-party sources nonetheless. The qualifiers "substantial" and "significant" may have been misunderstood by the above poster. WP:N describes "significant" as a qualifier for the article itself, not he publication, as in: Does the citation discuss the article in a "significant" or "trivial" nature? Again, as per WP:N, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Any discussion of WP:COI is welcomed and encouraged. Any and all edits made to the article in question are open to revision or deletion, especially if they qualify for WP:COI, such as bias or lack of neutral tone. This AfD discussion is independent of the article itself. Please briefly review edits made to this article: they are grammatical and organizational, or offer changes to diction, or add references. Stuartathompson (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * Comment Uh, no. The links do not work in the article itself. Maybe from your computer but not from my work PC or home Mac. And no, I do not "misunderstand" the qualifiers in question. WP:N notability is fairly nuanced in order to allow leaway for editors when discussing these things. In the end it's a matter of interpretation but do not insult me by telling me that I misunderstand the terms. My reading of the sources provided is that they are insufficient to establish notability. It's as simple as that. This organization is simply not there yet. That's my opinion. And I'm sure "[a]ny discussion of WP:COI is welcomed and encouraged" since you were not upfront about it until I called you on it. I'm sorry, but you have contributed very little to Wikipedia outside an organization that you are affiliated with and participating in a deletion discussion when you are the press officer. This is why Wikipedia has conflict of interest guidelines. Conflicts of interest do not always involve monetary gain. There are other issues at stake as well. Do not misunderstand me: you are welcome to edit; you are welcome to participate in this discussion. But the COI guidelines are important for a reason and you have been dismissive of them so far, mainly because I called you on it. Anyway, I'm done with this. I've said my what I have to say.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Any offense was unintentional. Attempts were only made to provide direct quotations from the source material used to justify this AfD discussion. Contributions to Wikipedia have been made often outside this article but this username was only recently registered using my full real name. I was unaware of full disclosure WP:COI protocol but have taken steps to make any affiliations clear by adding my name to the discussion page for the article in question. I remain confident that edits made to this article do not violate WP:COI but welcome sound arguments to the contrary. This discussion appears incidental to the debate at hand. Your passionate responses are much appreciated, but sources added to this article since its nomination for AfD and a direct interpretation of WP:N attempts to disagree with you. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the Grand Theatre, Ontario, I was certainly not attempting to justify this article's existence on the basis of the other article; rather, I was attempting to justify the inclusion of the City of London Arts Council recognition as a supplement to this article's notability on the (perhaps false) conclusion that it is acceptable evidence -- a conclusion reached by seeing other articles using such evidence. If the Grand Theatre, Ontario is justified on different grounds, or not at all, then I rescind my argument. Stuartathompson (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson
 * You are linking to the wrong City of London here! The Grand Theatre is a decent-sized professional theatre over a century old; I'm not familiar with the relevant policy for notability of theatres but I imagine it passes easily. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - most of the commentary above relates to either a perceived COI or to the quality (rather than wikipedia-eligibility) of the article. COI can be dealt with, and is not an absolute bar to editing an article.  Issues of quality are a call to improve an article not to delete it. Perhaps the COI and quality issues could be taken to a more appropriate forum. TJRC (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a group that has done nothing is not notable. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually hate popping in here all the time as it appears that I'm on some sort of crusade, but I do need to respond to TJRC. At no time did I indicate that I was concerned with the quality of the article. The quality of the sources, yes, but the article itself is not what I am concerned with. I am only interested in the notability of the subject. And as Johnbod so succinctly put it, this group hasn't actually done anything yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as we all know. Likewise, I very specifically stated that I am aware that COI is not a reason for deletion and that Stuartathompson is more than welcome to edit and participate in this discussion. The COI issue is important but in no way did I state or imply that a conflict of interest was a reason for deletion. On the contrary, I've been pretty adamant that it is all about sources and notability.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Information has been added to the article to reflect work the organization has completed: Open House has organized, promoted or sponsored music and art shows at the Alex P. Keaton, the Yale Speakeasy and Coffee Culture with artists from the London area and abroad, including a band from the United Kingdom. Open House organized and promoted a White Album Tribute Show at the London Music Club as the Viking Swimmers of 1926. The organization also has a partnership with the Grand Theatre, Ontario to promote theatre productions, including "Robertson Davies: The Peeled I." 24.150.227.235 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson


 * Keep based on indicia of notability noted by Stuartathompson. TJRC (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A student newspaper can be used as a source, but I can't see how it can support notability. The source that is more relevant is the CBC interview. I've listened to this, and I hope the closing admin does as well (as Freshacconci says you need to copy and paste the link). Personally, I don't think it's enough. It's only 6 minutes long.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand this discussion is almost at its end (almost five days now I believe). Though there's been interest in keeping the article, there have also been arguments for deletion. May I suggest, if the consensus or administrative decision does not favour keeping the article, that the administrator moves it to a stub or piece of another article until such a time as notability can be confirmed to a degree satisfying standards argued for in this debate. Freshacconci suggested moving it to a stub of Olenka and the Autumn Lovers since ties there are strong. Another possibility would be moving it as a Canada-related stub, as is the London Ontario Live Arts Festival. The "indicia of notability" added to the article since this debate began may make deletion a step too far. 64.201.38.62 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson


 * 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.