Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AccessArt

: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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Visual arts education#United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

=[[:AccessArt]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=AccessArt}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=AccessArt}})

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/sep/17/elearning.technology4 this] 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason {{tq|charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally}}, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/art-map-access-1.7268468], [https://books.google.ca/books?id=eP6DxKyo7SAC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=%22AccessArt%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PP15#v=onepage&q=%22AccessArt%22%20-wikipedia&f=false] and [https://books.google.ca/books?id=GqvkDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT521&dq=%22AccessArt%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PT521#v=onepage&q=%22AccessArt%22%20-wikipedia&f=false]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.