Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphic Artists Guild

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 delete, swayed by editors noting the lack of wide independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic Artists Guild

Graphic Artists Guild (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No independent secondary sources found in multiple searches May 2008. They have published a handbook that is widely available in bookstores, but otherwise I found next to nothing. Norwaystudent (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I'm not finding articles that are just about the Guild - but it does seem to be mentioned in various articles like [1] for its association with the UAW, on legal matters like [2] and in what look like independent articles like [3] -- I'm not finding particularly good references you'd want to cite - but part of problem seems to be there's too many hits on them and individual chapters. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete:' Fails WP:ORG. Passing sound on references do not constitute notability. Notability can be proved by significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely keep! G.A.G. has been a very significant, influential, and innovative organization for illustrators, graphic designers and other professionals in commercial art. G.A.G. has played a leading role (often in coalitions with writers and others) in work on intellectual property rights, which has affected federal legislation as well as business practices throughout the publishing industry and beyond.

If there are relatively few and vague references to G.A.G. in major media sources, that might have something to do with corporate reluctance to give publicity to its campaigns for creators' rights. It's also possible the G.A.G.'s most important work was done in the pre-Internet era, which would account for a relatively low profile on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelydra (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment can we determine if this falls in Commercial or non-Commercial organisation? I was tending to think as primarily a labour union its non-commercial so WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." not necessarily 'significant coverage'? Actually I'm not that sure it fails the primary criterion anyway as mentions aren't 'trivial' as in address listings, meeting times etc. which is quoted in the policy - but are specifically selecting it as relevant example of 'x' or having influence on 'y'.-Hunting dog (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. Non-Commercial organizations do need coverage which is "substantial". Trivial OR incidental coverage is not sufficient to establish notability.--Work permit (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has been on wikipedia for two years, and yet cites no reliable third party sources that shows or even hints that the Guild is notable. In fact, it doesn't cite any third party sources. I would say that is sufficient reason to delete it. After two years on wikipedia, the burden should not be on us to independently find evidence that perhaps it is notable. Having said that, I tried to anyway. I did a search in the NY Times and Proquest. To User:Chelydra's point, these databases of print articles do cover "the pre-Internet era". I can only find passing references to the guild. The following quotes are typical of the handful I found (apologies for the pay site):

During the hearing, held at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, representatives of National Artists Equity, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, the Graphic Artists Guild and other artists' groups spoke both for and against portions of the bill. The painter Larry Rivers and the sculptor John Raimondi also spoke, as did a number of art lawyers and art dealers. ^[1]

Artists for Tax Equity - consisting of 45 organizations, including the Graphic Artists Guild and the Artists Rights Society - campaigned against a provision of the new tax law that required them to capitalize their work. ^[2]

The references in the articles Hunting dog cites are similar in nature:

For example, the UAW also represents workers in the tractor and earthmoving equipment industry (e.g., Caterpillar and John Deere) and in the aerospace industry (e.g., Boeing), and in the late 1990s it added such disparate groups as the Graphics Artists Guild (3,000 members), the National Writers Union (5,000 members), and various service, technical, and graduate student employees at more than 20 colleges and universities across the country. [4]

WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above". The Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criterion mentioned is that

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

This article fails the test. All the coverage found is incidental.--Work permit (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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.