Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts


 * 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. Withdrawn by nom. Sources added demonstrate notability. Non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Society for the Encouragement of the Fine Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a non notable art organisation. There are two references in the article both offer trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC). Withdrawn. I'm withdrawing the afd nomination. The sources added since the afd demonstrate notability. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral- If reliable sources can be found, then I think the article could stay. If not, then it is most adequate to delete.  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I've added a couple more references to the article under External Links, one from 1878 the other from 2006. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that this society has anything like the importance of the RSA or is ever likely to be reassessed as having the formative importance of the Leeds Arts Club, for example, but it may be better to include than to exclude. AllyD (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One of those sources was already there, its just a sentence. The other you added similarly a sentence. The article has been an orphan with just 4 non bot edits since it was created 3 years ago. Szzuk (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One of those sources happens to be EB1911, which gave it a mention 50 years after the organisation was established. There are many sources to be found, including many very notable periodicals of the time.-- John Vandenberg (chat) 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The EB1911 is one sentence, does that demonstrate notability? I've just been to the links you gave, they don't add up to much in my eyes. Perhaps as the article creator you should properly source this article yourself? 4 edits in 3 years demonstrates nobody else wants to. Assuming you can find, WP:RS, reliable sources. Szzuk (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read The Musical World 40 (11): p 165? What part of this article is not sourced to a reliable source? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How could I read it when the link to it in the article is dead? I suspect it is a) a one sentence trivial mention or b) something best left in the dusty old manuscript it came from. All of the sources in the article are in my opinion trivial. Szzuk (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read it and it is not one sentence (the link works fine for me), it is the whole page, with details that are useful for the article. IMO, the best reference here, though, is the one from 2006, which shows that no matter how dusty, someone has written about this society professionally as part of an ongoing project: Exhibition Culture in 19th Century London 1878-1908. Also, read this: The website database records over 3,000 exhibitions and 900 galleries in London [...] between 1878 and 1908." How do you decide which of those have sufficient material available for articles? Maybe a better approach is to have an article on exhibition culture in 19th century London? Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, one sentence is often sufficient IMHO.  e.g. EB1911 entry for Accius was a single sentence.  If it was "A meeting was held at ...", that wouldn't warrant any further attention.  OTOH, if it says that the organisation was important to "progress" in a discipline and/or region, that indicates it is historically relevant. We are not limited by the costs of distribution (WP:NOTPAPER) or the need to write exhaustive articles about topics immediately (WP:NOTDONE). John Vandenberg (chat) 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per John. Hobit (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. John created the article. It would be unusual if he wanted it deleted. Szzuk (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are suppose to be a superset of encyclopedias. If a 100 year-old mainstream one covered it, we should too.  Pretty much per the 5 pillars. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They didn't cover it. It was mentioned in one sentence. My mother has a copy of the EB from the 1950s. I'm sure it was very good in its day, now it is very dated and much of it simply wouldn't get on WP. Szzuk (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you point to any article in the EB1911 that has been deleted after being created here on Wikipedia? Redirects and merges, maybe, but deletion, I think not. Simply waving a hand and declaring something dated doesn't make it so, and is certainly not a valid deletion reason. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Welll... battue was deleted as a WP:dictdef. More can be seen here. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP common practise is helpful, but human intervention provides nuance and exception. I believed this was an exception because the page is so sparse. I was wrong, but exceptions occur perhaps more than you think. I'm going to withdraw the nom. Szzuk (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was going to boast about my Google-fu (a deliberate red-link as we should have an article) by offering up a helpful link to some Google Books search results, but I see that John Vandenberg has already linked the same search. This was clearly notable for many decades, which means that, by our standards, it is still notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - added some sources on the talk page. This Society held regular meetings for decades in London, attended by many of the great and good of the time, with lectures by people who often have articles themselves, and the people running the society often have articles themselves, and it gets mentioned in the The Times fairly regularly. Does that make it notable? I think so, but I can understand why others might not think so. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (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.