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. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency (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)

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [1] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (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.