Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Culture Caucus

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. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Culture Caucus

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I just added three separate references to the Visual Culture Caucus from books published in 2005, 2008, and 2009. These should establish notability. Grhabyt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those sources added by Grhabyt (t c) are just enough to verify the existence of the caucus. They definitely do not establish notability -- each book mentions the caucus for less than one whole sentence. I was unable to find any more significant coverage, and as per WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." —Darkwind (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources indicate it exists in some form or another in relation to the CAA Conference. But the sentence in Kromm book, for example, is sourced from the mention in the introduction to the Dikovitskaya book, which doesn't suggest to me strong coverage. I can't see how its possible to verify who's a member and, in any detail, what it does. It is already mentioned in the (unsourced) CAA article. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2013 (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.