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. Michig (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Arts Commission (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)

Doesn't meet the guidelines for notability under WP:ORG or WP:GNG as there is little coverage of an organization by this name in the context of St. Louis ("regional arts commission" "st louis"), and that coverage is local. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL local/regional arts council. Largoplazo (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NORG (or WP:GNG). While I'm sympathetic to the nominator's statement, I think this topic is covered significantly in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. In particular, the articles from St. Louis Public Radio and the St. Louis Post Dispatch deal with the topic in some depth and are independent and reliable (the Fox and CBS affiliates are less in-depth; the Riverfront Times is fine, but it's not quite the Post Dispatch). I don't think this topic falls within the spirit of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. It's the primary arts funder in a major US city; not the 11th garden beautification society in Bemidji... Ajpolino (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion was brought to my attention in part by a talk page post from the page creator (though I would've seen it from article alerts anyway...). He's new and meant well. I've informed him of expectations regarding canvassing. Let's move along. Ajpolino (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - per WP:NONPROFIT. Expenditure of $6.4 million in tax money rightly attracts independent coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NONPROFIT says the opposite of that: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead" (italics added). What it calls for is the antithesis of surmising the existence of such coverage from an arbitrary factor like tax expenditures. And it indicates that coverage outside the area is required, but I haven't found any. Largoplazo (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while coverage is overwhelmingly local, it is extensive and long-lived by local periodicals of record. While hard to find with news search due to constant mentions in local media, there is some non-local coverage eg this May in Art in America. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, refs look typical for this kind of organisation. Szzuk (talk) 17:09, 2 October 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.