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. v/r - TP 03:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Print Council of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I was unable to find any secondary source coverage of this organisation, and as such it fails WP:CORP. See comment below on why I believe it now satisfies notability guidelines. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a number of independent references, such as The artist's guide to his market, and Handbook of Audubon prints, and Art market research: a guide to methods and sources, and Printmaking in America: collaborative prints and presses, 1960-1990, and German expressionist prints: the Marcia and Granvil Specks collection. The organization may not be widely known among the general public, but it is known and notable among print experts, and the topic is encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Significance within a particular field might garner a cite within related articles, but significant third-party coverage is needed to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JFHJr (㊟) 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per sources cited above by user Cullen328 and these sources, many of which are quite reliable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not independently notable.- Well, its looking a bit notable after User:Cullen's improvements - I am seeing some ... reporting of the group in independent reports, so I am moving to at least... neutral leaning - keep now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rob. I've continued working on the article, trimmed mediocre references, reformatted bare urls, added high-quality independent references and two external links, and expanded it. I think it meets our standards now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done, it's greatly improved now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to Jim and Northamerica1000 for rescuing this one. I listed the article without having found the found sources which Jim and Northamerica1000 provided (must not have looked hard enough!), and it is now clearly notable with reliable, significant, and secondary source coverage. I'm happy to withdraw it and speedy keep but per WP:SK I'll have to wait for John to change his opinion too. Certainly both merit a barnstar for their rescuing efforts :) Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:30, 23 September 2011 (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.