Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Southern Gospel Music Association. The specific target could also be Dollywood, to be determined via talk page discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame

[edit]

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

Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable "Hall of Fame" and museum that appears to just be a room of theater building in Dollywood Theme Park. The article seems to have been lacking any sourcing since it was created and nothing comes up in a search except for trivial, run of the mill coverage in some un-reliable sources. As an alternative to deletion I'd be fine with it being merged with Dollywood. Since it's mentioned there and is a feature of the park. Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This smacks of an "not liking it" nomination; Southern Gospel music has a solid following and in this nom, reducing what seems to be a considerable museum about the genre to a 'room' at a pretty well-established theme park (a 'room' would not have a considerable park-closing induction ceremony devoted to it yearly, for instance) seems cruel on its face. It needs sources for sure (this is a slam-dunk WP:RESCUE), but it's very far from deletion. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nate, if you are interested in the motive for this nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Whitfield.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mentioned it being in a "room" in a theme park because I wasn't sure if notability should be based on it being a location or a company. I thought maybe if it was a location perhaps it could be merged into the theme parks article instead of just being straight deleted, like say a roller coaster that's not notability on it's own but is as part of a theme park would be, and when I did a search on Google for it looked like it was located in a room. So that's how I described it. It's called research. Which is something your suppose to do in an AfD. I know the default mentality when it comes to anything even semi-related to Christianity is to cry foul though, and treat the other person like they are only motivated by dislike of the subject. Personally, I could care less about the place. My only concern is if it's notable enough for an article and it doesn't seem like it is. Articles about Christian subjects aren't exempt from Wikipedia's notability standards and they don't get a pass by attacking other users motives. If you think its a slam dunk rescue though, by all means rescue it by providing some in-depth reliable sources that show it's notable. I could care less. Just saying it is and voting keep because you took offense to me using the word "room" isn't helpful though. To this AfD or the quality of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you look it up on Google Maps you'll see its located in a side "room" (building, area, whatever you want to call it) of Showstreet Palace Theater. So its not in its own location and the theater that it is located in isn't even notable enough for it's own article. So should a side area of it have one? I don't think so. Also, it isn't even mentioned in List of Dollywood attractions. In the Dollywood article both are only mentioned in passing. There's nothing about this that warrants an article. Including sourcing or the lack of it and yes it is located in a room (or more like hall probably). Which you would have known if you actually looked into it instead of just being judgmental. Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a bit surprised by the lack of coverage considering the list of inductees. The only thing I can find are press releases and brief mentions in travel guides (things to do while visiting Dollywood). Not sure what it means but doesn't meet basic notability threshold. Perhaps a merge into Dollywood would be appropriate. Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Just the museum by itself I agree would not be notable, but the hall of fame itself generates more news coverage than the museum-- they keep adding people, which generates coverage. Here is a small fraction of the news and magazine coverage: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. There are many, many more, and as such this article meets GNG. The association that runs the hall of fame also appears to be notable and already has an article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Gaston Gazette isn't trivial (and arguably that mention is trivial as well).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went through all eight articled noted by Ephiphyllumlover: five of them had a trivial one-sentence statement that "so-and-so was recognized by the hall of fame"; two articles didn't appear to have any mention of the organization, and one had the equivalent of a paragraph in an article that was about something else. Even if you added this all up it doesn't achieve in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If none of the above sources are good enough, here are more: Dillsburg man inducted into Southern Gospel Music Hall of Fame and Southern Gospel Music Hall of Fame Celebrates 15 Years and Southern Gospel Music Association Salutes Hall of Fame Inductees for 2011 and Troy Burns inducted into gospel hall of fame. All turned up on Google news--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions of inductions don't substantially talk about the Hall of Fame itself, they talk about the inductees. The Cybergrass looks like it discusses it extensively, so that one counts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what hall of fames do? They aren't about themselves. The fact that a variety of articles pay attention when a new induction is made proves notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That someone was inducted into the Hall of Fame probably makes them notable, but that doesn't mean that the Hall of Fame itself is notable. In order to demonstrate that the Hall of Fame and/or museum are notable, there needs to be sources talking about the Hall of Fame itself. Otherwise all you have is a list of inductees to the Hall of Fame, which might deserve a list article, but doesn't say anything about the Hall of Fame itself.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of what counts. But even then, there is substantial coverage of an event held by the hall of fame in one cybergrass article (including a paragraph summarizing the hall of fame), and you concede the other cybergrass article. Along with the Gaston Gazette, that would be three. These along with Dolly Parton, Gender, and Country Music By Leigh H. Edwards makes four sources demonstrating notability under GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also substantial coverage in Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel By James R. Goff Jr. with more discussion of it further on in the book. Another source could be here, but snippet view makes it hard to tell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hall of fame/museum has a video library that is available to and used by scholars, such as in:this paper. Historical photos from the hall of fame/museum are found in a variety of books of a third party nature and can be found by searching on Google Books. So the minimization of this as being merely a "room" seems incorrect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other Cybergrass source might be passable. Close Harmony talks about the SGMA with more detail, but the Hall of Fame itself is mentioned in passing. Same with the book about Dolly Parton: the mention is only a passing mention. The NRB source might have more details, so that one is possible. That someone's dissertation utilizes the Hall of Fame doesn't make it notable - it needs to actually be discussed by the dissertation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 269 and 277 of Close Harmony discusses the hall of fame in detail. Only the first of the two links of Close Harmony discusses it in passing (but it is the opening of the book).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I didn't read that part close enough. I'm actually changing my vote now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is 2 for delete and 4 for keep.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The closing admin will tally the votes and assess the arguments based on their merits before making a judgment.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with no objection to a redirect as appropriate) - Just not seeing it. I'm not a very tough customer when it comes to museums and notability, but all I see are plentiful brief mentions and no in depth coverage about the organization. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 19 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_Gospel_Museum_and_Hall_of_Fame&oldid=1072157954"