Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenmuseum.org (2nd nomination)

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. NPASR Courcelles 00:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenmuseum.org

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Previous afd got only one response, and so was 'keep'. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Weak keep, per WP:NONPROFIT, they support environmental artists all around the world and information about them and their activities can be verified by [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Nimuaq (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note Nimuaq's comments above, but think that for me this is probably an example where it is a small organisation with a claim to internationality that isn't international in scale, per WP:NONPROFIT. There was the passing mention by Grayson Perry in the Times, but it was no more than a passing mention as far as I can see - so I can't support keeping this article, but no prejudice to reinstating if more widespread coverage is received. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly, I don't think there are more sources out there. If the founder of the museum had a separate article, I would support merging it to there, but unlike WP:CORPDEPTH which requires significant coverage, WP:NONPROFIT only requires multiple, third-party, independent and reliable sources. In any case, I can see your point about the phrase "international in scale", which is stated in WP:NONPROFIT as:

"Caveat - Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international. Example: a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not "international in scale" simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live".

This might be a case of "members living in separate countries", so I'm no longer sure if we can say that the scope of their activities is international (or even national) in scale if its just a blog-type website whose members can send pictures of their art. However, there are still multiple independent sources about it, so it might meet WP:GNG. Nimuaq (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage including several of the sources noted by Niumaq as well a 2002 profile in Whole Earth[6], and quite a few references at GBooks and GNews that suggest that this is recognized as a significant resource for environmental art.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 7 February 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.