Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haiku Society of America

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku Society of America

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

You'd think maybe this article's subject would be clearly notable. Apparently, not so. A Google News search turned up nothing substantively about this organization, which does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Organizations. Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why only a Google news search was considered? There are pages and pages of hits in Google Books, some without preview, but including seven substantive hits in Lenard D. Moore and African American Haiku: Merging Traditions; some hits in Haiku, Other Arts, and Literary Disciplines, including the statement that it is the largest society devoted to haiku outside Japan, and has official definitions of forms which are discussed (p126); five substantive hits in One Hundred Frogs: From Renga to Haiku to English including more discussions of their definitions and some stuff about their journal Frogpond; lots of hits in Haiku Mind: 108 Poems to Cultivate Awareness and Open Your Heart whose bios freq. mention their involvement in the society from which more history could be constructed; more history on how their definition was reached The Classic Tradition of Haiku: An Anthology; also Haiku in English: The First Hundred Years; International Who's Who in Poetry 2005 (incl people winning their prizes); Haiku--The Sacred Art: A Spiritual Practice in Three Lines (two paragraphs on society plus sep para of Frogpond) and lots more (that's just the first two pages of hits). The WL Ebscosearch also has a lot of hits though the top ones are mainly from Frogpond and some of the others look like press releases. Incl Saying it in 17 syllables. By: Mulrine, Anna, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 06/30/97, Vol. 122, Issue 25 (paragraph); Poetry. By: Von Drasek, Lisa, School Library Journal, 03628930, , Vol. 48, Issue 8 (3 sentences, including mention of their awards) and lots more there and on Proquest. Their papers are kept at the Online Archive of California [1]. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article

Added sources and some text

Passes GNG

— Cielquiparle (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this is a non-profit organization, IMO we're looking at the two criteria per WP:NONPROFIT. IMHO the refs found by Espresso Addict, most of them with around 10 hits, are independent, secondary, and passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS, hence meeting the second criteria: The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. The first criteria of WP:NONPROFIT, The scope of their activities is national or international in scale, from my perspective is probably passed because of the decent coverage and it being the largest society dedicated to haiku and related forms of poetry outside Japan per ref 1. The article has also been significantly improved since the AfD nomination. VickKiang (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2022 (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.