Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CompassionArt

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. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CompassionArt

CompassionArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

CompassionArt (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This is a joint nomination for the organization and the same-titled album.

The organization and the album both fail GNG, which requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only material coverage I was able to identify for either the album or the organization was in Christian sources. Note that there is tons of notable Christian music that—that is, Christian music that gets significant coverage in reliable sources that are not dedicated to Christian topics (Billboard has at least four Christian charts), so I am not in any way suggesting that Christian music is in any way inherently non-notable).

The organization also fails WP:ORG, which for non-commercial organizations requires both:

1. Scope of activities national or international in scale; and
2. Verified by significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

(1) is not met by funding international charities. (2) is not met by having a few write-ups in very closely-linked sources. Since both are required, the organization doesn't meet the guideline.

I do not believe that WP:MUSIC is applicable to the organization as the article is about a charitable organization. Were it to be applicable, these are how the criteria would be applied. The only possible hope is (6), and I don't believe it is reasonable to come to a positive conclusion on that one, either.

1. Unable to find non-trivial coverage in sources that are truly independent.
2. No chart results identified.
3. No gold records identified.
4. No nation-wide or international concert tour identified.
5. Has not released two albums at all, so no need to question whether the label is "major".
6. Not an "ensemble" by normal criteria (the group joined for one album).
7. Has not become a prominent representative of any style.
8. No major award nominations.
9. No major competition places.
10. Does not appear to have performed music for a notable work of media.
11. No national rotations identified.
12. No national program-length broadcasts identified.

The album may be considered by reference to WP:NALBUMS, which points back to the the basic criteria of N (i.e., WP:GNG) as the only way to establish notability for an album. The album, as mentioned above, fails GNG. ^Bongo_matic 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand the nom, because I had no problem finding at least a few articles that were clearly about this project in mainstream (secular) independent reliable sources. Examples: Associated Press/MSNBC.com, Malaysia Star, Lexington Herald-Leader/Kentucky.com, FoxNews.com. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Malaysia Star—no offense intended—is not a reliable source on this sort of thing and this appears to be republished press-release blog post they use as filler. The Lexington Herald-Leader is too local a source to be used to establish notability. (Note that the blog used for the Malaysian star also demonstrates the extraordinarily local interest of the project). The two AP stories (MSNBC and Fox) are especially telling. Do a search for "other Christian songwriters attended a retreat early" or "How many songwriters does it take to write a hit" (with quotes). If the AP do an article on something—and that's essentially the only source of anything on it other than its own press releases—the fact that almost nobody of the thousands or tens of thousands of AP customers carried it is telling. ^Bongo_matic 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the sources cited by Metropolitan90 are sufficiently reliable and independent to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it is notable. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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.