Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy the 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 no consensus‎. No prejudice against renomination, due to low participation. ^Complex/_Rational 03:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the Arts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and defunct non-profit. Orphaned for nearly a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Ohio. PepperBeast (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wcquidditch, why is Enjoy the Arts not notable, and did you "look for sources yourself" before nominating the page for deletion, as required? A brief search on newspapers.com turned up scores of articles about the organization which was around for nearly 40 years. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (part 1; part 2). Meanwhile, the fact that the organization is now "defunct" (more accurately, it merged with another arts-based organization) is irrelevant, because notability is not temporary; if the organization was notable pre-merger, it is notable now. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not the nominator (Pepperbeast is). I merely added this nomination to a deletion sorting list but have no actual opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thanks for the clarification. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of citations and orphaning as mentioned by @Pepperbeast. VERY WP:PUFFERY too. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Article content does not determine notability". The fact that an article wants for cites or links is irrelevant, because Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... [I]f the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter if there is no interest in the article and it gets orphaned. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral due to WP:MOS not having an affect as I believed. I also believed orphaning affected status, which it doesn't. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 2 in the list above is solid. 1 and 3 are trivial, but with them and the rest, we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.