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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Amador County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to be WP:PROMO. Just like El Dorado Arts Council, is nothing but an advertisement for the company. I am also nominating the following related pages for also having notability problems and promotional content:

Humboldt Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Los Angeles County Arts Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Madera County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marin Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Santa Barbara County Arts Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arts Council for Monterey County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Riverside Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arts Council of Mendocino County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calaveras County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cultural Arts Council of Sonoma County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arts Council of Napa Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yuba–Sutter Regional Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Luis Obispo County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lake County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arts Orange County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mariposa County Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

YoloArts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - each of these organizations are very different and might be notable - or not. Bearian (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For example:

  1. Amador County Arts Council - I don't know, but a merger to either the county or state arts council would be fine.
  2. Humboldt Arts Council has already been merged with a museum; that's a probable keep as they have potential sources.
  3. City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs is a government agency, and covers one of the newest and most vibrant art capitals of the world. That's a definite keep.

  Bearian (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For ones like City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, I could argue they could be notable to stay. As for ones like Madera County Arts Council, that are pretty much an advertisement with only primary sources availible, I would say delete for. Though all of these councils are mixed in notabilty. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  However, except for City of LA, a lot of these arts councils are likely to remain perma-stubs. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - per Bearian's analysis above. Also, there is nothing wrong with stubs and that is not a reason for deletion, AfD is not clean up. It seems that proper WP:BEFORE searches are not being conducted since so many are sent to AfD within minutes of one another by this editor. I fail to understand how these mass deletions would be an improvement to the encyclopedia and a benefit to its readership. What proof is there that they are PROMO? While I agree that promotional/advertorial editing can harm the integrity of the encyclopedia, I am not finding that this is the case for these stubs that have existed for nearly two decades. They can be improved. WP:HASPOT. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - Since I looked more into some of these articles, I may withdraw some of these articles from this discussion, but I think some of them could still be AFD worthy, such as Madera County Arts Council, which I can only find primary sources for. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ロドリゲス恭子, Did you check news and newspapers in a BEFORE search? I'm finding significant coverage of Madera County Arts Council like this: [1],

  [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and more. Note: Log into Newspapers.com may be required to see these, however, they are clearly verifiable, and establish that the Arts Council meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2025 (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.