Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts Access Aotearoa

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Access Aotearoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Three pages in to a bing search and there's nothing but social media, fundraising, & trade listings, certainly nothing approaching the requirements for reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KioreNZ here, pretty sure I'm doing this wrong, sorry! I've been reading things and I'm still not very confident using Wikipedia. The logo was taken from the organization's website and after the first notice I got in touch and confirmed they're okay with me using it - are you able to give me the rough idea of what I need to do to so that this image is compliant with Wikipedia processes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KioreNZ (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KioreNZ, this isn't a discussion about the logo (though that has issues too), it's about the article. There's no evidence that the organisation meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability, under either the general or organisation specific guidelines. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The major New Zealand newspapers The Herald and The Press have stories about Arts in Corrections, eg [1], the Arts Access Awards, eg [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and other organisations have stories about the awards or the Arts For All guide and network - [9], [10], [11]. Short of having WP articles for the awards and the Arts for All and Arts in Corrections initiatives, having one article about the overall organisation makes sense to me. The article could certainly do with improvement, including reliable independent sources and more specific examples of the impact of the programs and awards (and editing sentences that have been part-edited and left mangled). RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added some references to the article, and fixed one sentence. More could be done, but this may help establish the notability of the organisation's initiatives. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2018 (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.