Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Foundation for Popular Culture

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Popular Culture

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

I see no evidence of notability here at all, just existence. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Meets WP:ORG and WP:AUD. Per WP:AUD:

Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

El Vocero (see [1]), NotiCel (see [2]) and Primera Hora (see [3]) are considered regional newspapers as they expand all of Puerto Rico, not merely a city. Furthermore, the organization is well known in the territory due to its public service announcements such as: [4] which are transmitted on WKAQ-TV, WAPA-TV, and WLII-TV.

And finally, the organization itself is considered a reliable source in matters related to Puerto Rican culture, as shown in the book The Afro-Latin@ Reader: History and Culture in the United States; see [5]:

For information on Lucecita's career [...] see [...] Lucecita's folders at the Fundación Nacional para la Cultura Popular.

Other sources where the foundation is covered include: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Suggestion is to do a search on its Spanish name rather than in English.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem is not that the organization lacks notability but that the notability is not evident because the does not yet include citations like the additional citations listed above. As an alternative, it can be marked as a stub while the article is expanded. Mercy11 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed by Ahnoneemoos are enough to establish notability. Hopefully the article can be expanded with the new sources explaining the role and importance of the organization. --Jmundo (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2013 (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.