347:: "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 for advice on where to look for sources. Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} 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.".
787:
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 promising young artists through arts competitions, scholarships and other career opportunities". That looks like
853:
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.
499:
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
305:
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,
786:
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
725:
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
671:
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
496:
245:
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
852:
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,
249:
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
759:
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
837:
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.
370:
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
587:
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;
624:
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
605:
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
822:
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.
806:
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
655:. 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. --
710:
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.
552:'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
174:
242:- 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.
490:
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
625:
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
583:
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
319:
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. --
168:
764:. Now if an interested person looks up the body that made the award and draws a blank on Knowledge, that does not reflect very well on our ambition to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. It
461:-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. -
102:
97:
529:
425:
255:
106:
570:
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
540:, 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
89:
588:
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. -
206:
129:
134:
513:
sources (multiple, third-party, independent, reliable) about NSAL? Not Google hits, not speculation, but actual references that could be used to write an article. -
420:
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? "
548:
of press and scholarship is biased towards sports, entertainment, and politics. Which is why we have various subject-specific notability guidelines. Such as
436:
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.
476:
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? --
93:
640:. That does not mean, of course, that these citations would suffice to source the article itself. But they do suffice to establish its notability.
189:
636:. The longevity is an additional criteria that is supportive, as is the organization's inclusion in the preeminent reference on the subject, the
156:
616:(1) This is a discussion of deletion, based on notability of the organization. References and other criteria are used to establish notability.
298:
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
672:
momentum from that founding, which, apparently, continues. As for additional press sources, the website lists an additional press source,
85:
77:
916:
895:
862:
847:
832:
817:
777:
735:
720:
689:
664:
594:
565:
519:
485:
467:
413:
387:
328:
312:
285:
233:
220:
71:
150:
632:
Here, we have sufficient cites to establish notability -- local press coverage plus national scope together establish notability per
395:
5700+ references in google books, including people listing participation in the organization as well as awards from the organization;
492:
698:. Note, I haven't added the references in; just linked pre-existing references included by other editors. You know, there were
537:
525:
433:
421:
263:
251:
146:
356:
You mentioned that the local paper sources I adduced weren't "quotable". Could you explain what you mean and why you think so?
66:
17:
694:
I have now linked the NSAL article from some of its references within
Knowledge pages on various artists / entertainers. See
544:
the organization, that is, frankly, often challenging for non-profit organizations, as it is for, say, academics. Being the
441:
As I've said, NSAL may be notable, but let's have those "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" specified by
196:
695:
629:
I mentioned above) helps to establish notability, but should very rarely (almost never) be used as a source in the article.
768:
difficult to find quotable material but in this case that just means it's difficult, not that the subject is not notable.
533:
429:
259:
53:
162:
935:
40:
350:
The sources tag was added this month (July 2012), which hasn't given anyone much time or notice to find sources;
912:
702:
just using the formal organizational name, and I haven't even looked for acronyms or mis-spellings. See
931:
891:
799:
217:
36:
908:
748:
648:
633:
571:
553:
549:
442:
372:
367:
182:
62:
843:
828:
731:
716:
685:
660:
561:
481:
409:
383:
324:
281:
250:
numerous references to press coverage of the organization or its various chapters. See, e.g.,
363:
Seems to me that a bit more good-faith work needs to be done here before deleting the article.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
930:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
676:, April 16, 1946, covering a 1946 convention of the organization presided over by First Lady
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
887:
876:
858:
773:
761:
458:
299:
210:
495:
gives tons of usable material confirming that group was set up in that year. Searching for
812:
788:
589:
514:
462:
446:
307:
228:
803:
58:
839:
824:
792:
727:
712:
681:
656:
557:
477:
405:
379:
320:
277:
449:
are not sources; they may or may not say something useful. Who has actually written
808:
453:
NSAL, not simply to note that they have handed X or Y a prize? Is a listing in the
123:
854:
769:
677:
652:
644:
353:
The article creator wasn't notified about the AFD (I took care of that, though);
344:
578:
and its activities". We don't have that, and we need it if we're going to keep.
273:
Seems sufficiently notable to me, at least to merit a "put cites in" template.
879:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
751:
per LQs refs above. Even if we were to decide that the available sources do
609:
More importantly, I think you are fundamentally confusing the issues here.
302:
of demonstrating notability lies on those wishing to keep the article.
227:
I see no references establishing the notability of this entity. -
432:
about NSAL was held on St. Louis public radio in
January 2012"? "
924:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
398:
The organization and many of its chapters have an entry in the
706:. I really want to beg editors to properly search Knowledge
556:
in (a) scope and (b) verifiability in multiple sources? --
375:
criteria for notability, "verifiable by multiple sources".
703:
119:
115:
111:
886:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
181:
907:
This is a well known org among the literati in U.S.
428:
has held a voice and art competition since 2010"? "
392:Here's a few more notations indicating notability:
246:
a lot of people have been involved in it over time.
700:more than 20 internal references already existing,
207:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
938:). No further edits should be made to this page.
643:I hope this clarifies the relationship between
747:In my opinion satisifies both requirements of
402:, the primary tertiary source on the subject.
195:
8:
619:(2) Article content must also be referenced.
205:Note: This debate has been included in the
497:"National Society of Arts and Letters" 1944
204:
424:held a musical fundraiser in May 2010"? "
802:, really? Yes, I know that technically,
500:about NSAL would give its founding date.
7:
86:National Society of Arts and Letters
78:National Society of Arts and Letters
509:So I ask once again: where are the
371:various activities. So that meets
24:
755:satisfy requirement 2, we should
366:As for assessing the notability,
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
638:Encyclopedia of Associations
627:Encyclopedia of Associations
455:Encyclopedia of Associations
400:Encyclopedia of Associations
955:
917:00:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
896:00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
863:00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
848:23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
833:23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
818:22:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
778:19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
736:20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
721:20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
690:19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
665:18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
595:18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
566:03:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
520:18:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
486:01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
468:14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
414:05:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
388:05:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
329:13:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
313:03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
286:02:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
234:16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
221:17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
72:00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
927:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
576:about the organization
343:Hi Biruitorul. Hmm.
696:Special:WhatLinksHere
534:st louis public radio
260:st louis public radio
800:mayoral proclamation
524:I referenced these:
530:dunkirk NY observer
434:NSAL held a banquet
256:dunkirk NY observer
574:requires sources "
526:boca raton tribune
493:"Sierra Club" 1892
252:boca raton tribune
48:The result was
898:
816:
793:original research
593:
518:
466:
311:
232:
223:
54:non-admin closure
946:
929:
885:
881:
815:
592:
517:
465:
310:
231:
214:
200:
199:
185:
137:
127:
109:
70:
34:
954:
953:
949:
948:
947:
945:
944:
943:
942:
936:deletion review
925:
874:
726:hoc fashion. --
674:Washington Post
426:NSAL Chautauqua
422:NSAL Boca Raton
294:It's certainly
212:
142:
133:
100:
84:
81:
57:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
952:
950:
941:
940:
920:
919:
909:Opportunidaddy
901:
900:
899:
883:
882:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
850:
835:
796:
781:
780:
741:
740:
739:
738:
723:
692:
668:
667:
647:(specifically
641:
630:
622:
621:
620:
617:
611:
610:
607:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
585:
580:
579:
568:
504:
503:
502:
501:
473:
472:
471:
470:
438:
437:
418:
417:
416:
403:
396:
376:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
351:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
303:
289:
288:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
247:
225:
224:
202:
139:
80:
75:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
951:
939:
937:
933:
928:
922:
921:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
902:
897:
893:
889:
884:
880:
878:
873:
872:
864:
860:
856:
851:
849:
845:
841:
836:
834:
830:
826:
821:
820:
819:
814:
810:
805:
801:
797:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
782:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
742:
737:
733:
729:
724:
722:
718:
714:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
635:
631:
628:
623:
618:
615:
614:
613:
612:
608:
604:
603:
596:
591:
586:
582:
581:
577:
573:
569:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
516:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
498:
494:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
469:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
401:
397:
394:
393:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
369:
365:
362:
361:
355:
352:
349:
348:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
309:
304:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
244:
243:
241:
238:
237:
236:
235:
230:
222:
219:
216:
215:
208:
203:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
131:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
79:
76:
74:
73:
68:
64:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
926:
923:
904:
875:
765:
756:
752:
749:WP:NONPROFIT
744:
707:
699:
673:
649:WP:NONPROFIT
637:
634:WP:NONPROFIT
626:
575:
572:WP:NONPROFIT
554:WP:NONPROFIT
550:WP:NONPROFIT
545:
541:
510:
454:
450:
443:WP:NONPROFIT
430:A discussion
399:
373:WP:NONPROFIT
368:WP:NONPROFIT
295:
239:
226:
211:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
49:
47:
31:
28:
888:Crisco 1492
745:Speedy Keep
678:Bess Truman
606:activities.
538:el paso inc
447:Google hits
264:el paso inc
169:free images
813:Biruitorul
590:Biruitorul
515:Biruitorul
463:Biruitorul
308:Biruitorul
229:Biruitorul
932:talk page
789:synthesis
704:WP search
459:directory
37:talk page
934:or in a
877:Relisted
840:Lquilter
825:Lquilter
728:Lquilter
713:Lquilter
682:Lquilter
657:Lquilter
558:Lquilter
511:specific
478:Lquilter
406:Lquilter
380:Lquilter
321:Lquilter
296:possible
278:Lquilter
130:View log
67:Contribs
39:or in a
804:WP:PSTS
546:subject
306:etc. -
175:WP refs
163:scholar
103:protect
98:history
855:Mcewan
798:And a
795:to me.
770:Mcewan
762:impact
708:before
651:) and
300:burden
266:, etc.
147:Google
107:delete
809:WP:RS
757:still
680:. --
584:keep.
542:about
451:about
218:Smith
213:Cliff
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
124:views
116:watch
112:links
16:<
913:talk
905:Keep
892:talk
859:talk
844:talk
829:talk
811:. -
774:talk
732:talk
717:talk
686:talk
661:talk
653:WP:V
645:WP:N
562:talk
482:talk
457:, a
410:talk
384:talk
345:WP:N
325:talk
282:talk
240:Keep
183:FENS
157:news
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
63:Talk
59:Dori
50:keep
791:or
753:not
197:TWL
132:•
128:– (
52:. (
915:)
894:)
861:)
846:)
838:--
831:)
823:--
776:)
766:is
734:)
719:)
711:--
688:)
663:)
564:)
536:,
532:,
528:,
484:)
445:.
412:)
404:--
386:)
378:--
327:)
284:)
276:--
262:,
258:,
254:,
209:.
177:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
65:☯
56:)
911:(
890:(
857:(
842:(
827:(
772:(
730:(
715:(
684:(
659:(
560:(
480:(
408:(
382:(
323:(
280:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
126:)
88:(
69:☽
61:☾
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.