Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RockSteady Choir

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RockSteady Choir[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reason I gave in PROD was that there is a failure to cite any references or to even claim notability. I cannot find any WP:RSes to support the group's notability (WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO). The four sources added after PROD do not discuss band or are WP:PRIMARY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is significant as it descibes the existance and success of an inner-city chancel choir in a world of declining church choirs - and why this choir has continued to thrive through this period. There is no attempt at self-promotion. The article attempts to be even-handed and informational through its use of external facts and references to a 'generalized' problem of declining choirs and indeed part of the reason for starting the article was to show ways that other small church choirs can thrive.
The article has references (see footnote numbers) to other WikiPedia pages on pertinent details.
The RockSteady Choir is a notable example of how this choir is 'bucking the trend' of decline in inner-city church chancel choirs and the information of how it has proceeded to 'reinvent' itself may be of general interest to other choirs facing similar exigencies.

I hope this addresses concerns and will preclude deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs)

This choir may well be important to some people for the above reasons, but what is required for a Wikipedia article to exist is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as described at WP:GNG. Has anyone unconnected to this choir written and published anything about it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This choir does not have 'notoriety' in the sense that there are a lot of online published coverage of its activities. However, both the nature and diversity that makes the choir unique and an example to other small church choirs is found in its online presence - even if only in the some 120 video excepts of its performances. The sheer length of its historical existence with continuity to its current iteration as the RockSteady Choir surely has some significance. Again, there is nothing intended in this Wikipedia entry that is intended as self-promotion or based on vested interest - it has been posted because the RockSteady Choir has shown that they can be category breakers by ongoing innovation and change in the latter years of their existence. Their use of old technology (the pipe organ) and new technology - in concert - shows a fresh approach that might be inspirational to other choirs. In fact, the last YouTube Video that was posted shows a mixture of old and new accompaniment technology where the accompanist is using a combination of a Yamaha keyboard mounted atop the pipe organ console - and the pipe organ. Surely these things make the choir and its styles somewhat unique and worthy of an entry in Wikipedia.

Articles have been written about the choir in small 'in-house' church journals and news magazines - however these have not been generally available in digital distribution. Would the lack of 'searchable' coverage online be enough to justify removal of the page? I hope not - as Wikipedia would seem to exemplify the eclecticism of our world - things both great and small. An example of something that doesn't really have a lot of 'online coverage' is the 'nail'. There is a Wikipedia page for this item. nail (fastener) Perhaps the ubiquitous 'nail' speaks for itself, but sometimes things more easily deemed obscure - perhaps such as an inner-city church choir - might be of interest to archivists in the future looking for information on small gospel choirs in churches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the choir appreciates the editing and changes to the page by Wikipedia editors in the few days of its existence. As the expression goes - "It takes a village...etc" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE and stick to providing information to support either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO for the choir. While nails don't have online sources, they have thirteen sources that discuss the term. They're also commonly used. My house would not be standing without a nail, but it would stand without RockSteady Choir. Similarly, if I were to speak to someone about a nail, I don't know of anyone who would not know of what I am speaking. If I call my brother or any of his family members in Southern Ontario, I doubt they would have any clue who the RockSteady Choir are, but they would all know what a nail is. And so if you can find reliable sources that are not published online that discuss the choir, such as academic journals or print media, by all means, supply those as sources. However, in-house content does not qualify as a reliable source and would be excluded from conferring notability on the subject. Concert reviews in The Toronto Star, or the like, would be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no referable online articles on the choir to which I am aware - as it is an amateur group and concerts and events that it attends and sponsors are not likely to receive published attention in major news outlets or online reviews. It is the uniqueness of the choir that is being touted. I accept your argument about my less than stellar example of a 'nails Wiki' - and even that there might not be much universal effect from the existence of the RockSteady Choir to date - however, the pace of change is slow in the choral world. One thing that makes this group of mostly senior adults from various ethnic backgrounds notable, is in its very existence in a world of more conventionally professional choirs. My supposition is that sometimes the 'little things' get lost in the shuffle. Perhaps if more people knew of the RockSteady Choir - as an example of a progressive church choir - more persons might be persuaded to join choirs in general although the point of creation of the Wikipedia article is not for that purpose - it is merely informational. I submit that the existence of the choir is indeed having an impact on local church choirs, what can be accomplished on a shoestring budget and the perception of church choirs in general - at least in the Toronto area...and if this is true - knowledge of the choir and its composition and style, might prove of more than just curious interest - in the longer term. If you cut off a plant as it is just beginning to grow - surely nothing will ever come of it. If you let the plant thrive for a while, it can produce useful byproducts. The effect of this choir in the larger pool of 'choral' groups is so far small, admittedly - but it is quantifiable even by the measure of 'published performances' on internet. No attempt is being made to advertise this choir for any monetary reasons - it exists as a musical group that somehow carves out a different 'niche' to the rest of the choirs. I submit that this uniqueness is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness is not a criteria for inclusion though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Katiefelix2015, sources do not have to be online but they do need to be reliable and not trivial. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that Katiefelix2015 does not have RSes. The way I have read her comments, she has self-published sources and trivial comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully disagree about the trivial comments and 'self-published' sources? The genesis of the choir is partially related to the area in which the choir's base church is located. A Wikipedia footnote link to this inner-city area (with many early 20th. century churches) St. Clair Avenue had been provided but seems to have been edited out. (It has been changed into an 'online link' see correction after this note) This area is in itself historically significant and as mentioned - the way the RockSteady Choir has survived is because they were able to adapt - where many other church choirs have ceased to exist. The eclectic mix of songs is testament to their flexible and adaptable approach to surviving and indeed thriving. Most choirs that 'survive' end up being 'self-promoting'...This choir seems to do what they love to do (all the while incorporating more modern techniques). It might be also interesting to note that even the internet promotion for their 13th annual 'Choir Concert' last June instructs that no admission charge is made and no tickets are sold. This is hardly a profit-making venture and the Wikipedia page seeks merely to illustrate the uniqueness of the choir, in the context of other gospel choirs (many of whom do operate in a profit-making mode) I see that the references to the somewhat rare 'pipe organ' accompaniment (especially for a 'gospel choir') have remained in the article. But what makes the choir unusual is the broad mix of styles and accompaniments. You can see many examples of this multi-faceted approach to their work in their online videos. I have always appreciated this choir - in fact, have followed it for many, many years...and I think that their presence in the world of 'gospel choirs' is worthy of noting. Lastly, it seems that the lack of 'published' articles or reviews is being used as a major criterion for potential deletion of the page. That strikes me as odd, as Wikipedia has always been a resource that references 'things' both great and small - that have intrinsic interest or value. Perhaps this is not a 'front-line' choir - nor, will it ever be - I don't know - but I respectfully submit again that the choir is unusual enough (constitution, music, ages and backgrounds, home base etc) that it does merit a Wikipedia page. I concur that 'uniqueness alone' doesn't qualify an item for Wikipedia inclusion - but I see this choir as more than just a 'choir' - it seems to be the flower that grows in the crevice of the rock - against all odds. I am of Christian belief myself, and the rarity of having any sort of online presence for belief-based organizations - as opposed to secular ones - is also glaringly obvious if you search the 'net'. Nevertheless, that was not my prime motivation for creating this page - I just mention it as a circumstantial fact that might be of some interest in the overall discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies...the footnote reference to 'St. Clair Avenue' was not deleted as stated above, it was converted into an 'online link'

Comment -- This seems to be about a church choir that periodically gives public concerts (perhaps one per year). Is that really enough to make it notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, I think the fact that it gives a few public concerts per year - (and I think that there are more than one a year, but not publicized) - is not the point. The uniqueness of this group is, I feel - their ability to change and modify themselves to differing generational needs and pressures - whilst still maintaining a unified and recognizable public face - as the Rocksteady Choir. It is no small feat to maintain headway in a world where 'church choirs' are fading away. I have followed this choir for years (since the early 80's) and seen this gradual metamorphosis - perhaps the notability of the choir lays in their ability to maintain headway where many others have failed? This is a disparate group of persons who, if asked - would probably not say that they are doing anything other than what they love to do - that is, sing. However, If you heard them, you would likely agree that the choir is noteworthy in the unique blend of styles which somewhat defines their existence. This is not a 'world class' choir in the sense of artistic excellence - but to me, it is interesting enough that others might be intrigued by them and find their journey of interest. Certainly, if it were just a church choir that gives periodic concerts - there would be little justification for a Wikipedia page - but they are not just that. They would seem to embody a 'never-give-up' attitude that makes them stand out among the scores of other inner-city church choirs to which I am aware. You know, I love to surf through Wikipedia and discover interesting facts and little-known things...I can imagine landing, by chance, on the Rocksteady Choir page and being intrigued - even if I knew little about choirs. Wikipedia is a treasure trove of such 'hidden gems'. On the other had, how some pages still exist without any protestation at all, is a mystery to me. Like this wonderful page I fell upon: Young Merlin that would seem to refer to a terribly obscure video game from 1994. I don't know...I think the Rocksteady choir is more interesting in even a general sense...but then again...others evidently do not feel this way. Aside from editors stumbling upon pages and deciding that they might or might not have merit - is there a good reason why the Rocksteady choir should NOT have a stable (not pending deletion) listing in Wikipedia? (now that we have discussed whether or not in our opinions it is notorious enough to merit a page) Katiefelix2015 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) katie[reply]

Again, uniqueness is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are. And for the record, Young Merlin has five reliable sources for 156 words. That's about one source for every 30 words. Every reference is talking about the subject. Not the kind of computers used to program the game. Not the type of cardboard used in the box (with a reference about how cardboard is recyclable). These are references about the subject. And that's the difference between the two topics: the video game article doesn't ramble and has five sources; this article rambles, and has no sources to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to recommend this page be trimmed and merged to a section on a new St. Clair Avenue Baptist Church page, but unfortunately I can't find enough coverage for the church to argue that topic would be notable. The church is, however, listed here: St._Clair_Avenue, and so if the creator of this topic wanted to keep any of this information, perhaps they could squeeze some relevant sentences about the choir there. So basically, attempt to redirect/merge, or delete. Yvarta (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to user Yvarta: I agree that the church itself is not 'notable' (except for its historical nature). The point of the Wikipedia article is to showcase the Rocksteady choir (which does happen to be their chancel choir - but it is not in the connection to the church, that their notability lies - it is in their unique approach.
Comment - Again, I initially chose this choir as a suitable candidate for Wikipedia due to its innovative and unusual nature (a combination of modern high-tech accompaniment and use of a pipe organ - and the diverse ethnic makeup of the choir (as noted on the Wiki page, although the general 'flavour' of the choir is 'black gospel) there are in its makeup other nationalities and ethnic backgrounds (Canadian aboriginal, Brazilian/Portugese national and others) which is certainly not your 'usual church choir') - and neither is the eclectic mix of styles and influences demonstrated in their performances. I submit that this page contains information that other small to medium choirs might find of use in their own development and thus, is not 'just a page about a church choir'. The information and presentation of the choir on this Wikipedia page could not be inserted on the St. Clair Avenue Baptist Church webpage due to space limitation - and also, some of the detailed information regarding styles and accompaniment would be perhaps a bit to 'arcane' for the church's general page. The information given about the choir on the church's website is basic information only. I have tried to document the special nature of this choir in the Wikipedia after doing a thorough analysis of their techniques and repertoire. Katiefelix2015 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Katie[reply]
- Let me tell you one more time: innovation is not a criteria for notability. You have written a lot about what they have done, but you have not supported anything with reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hello...what do you consider are 'reliable sources'? The would be no reportage on many things of interest if the discussion did not start somewhere. I have based my discourse about this choir on having been at their performances and from the numerous online videos. When Henry Ford started producing his very first vehicles, they were hardly recognizable as 'cars', and yes, nobody cared...but eventually, someone with a prescient view began to document his innovation...and we all know the rest of that story. I am asking you to not be so rigid in your judgement criteria, and try to see what I and others have seen - a choir that is truly different in a groundbreaking way - conventional notoriety being absent. Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Have you read any of the links provided above? Here they are: WP:GNG (general notability guideline) Henry Ford's Model-T would have met this criteria as they were heavily publicized. If they hadn't, they would not have had an encyclopedia article at that time and they would not have had a Wikipedia article at that time (had Wikipedia existed); WP:MUSICBIO (guidelines for determining the notability of musicians and groups); WP:RS what constitutes a reliable source. Read them. Understand them. Ask questions on the talk pages of those pages as to how they work. This is a discussion about the article. I'm rather tired of you trying to argue your way into an article for this group. I will no longer respond to your questions. Feel free to take it to an admin. I will also remove any further additions you make if they are unreferenced or tangential to the group (we don't care that they use a pipe organ, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on pipe organs, or wear pure polyester robes, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on polymers, or their music arrangements are printed on recycled paper, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on paper production, or anything that you think makes them unique or innovative or any other adjective you care to throw out). We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a compendium of interesting, unique, innovative, peculiar or curious topics. If you want to help to build an encyclopedia, feel free to follow the rules for creating good articles. If not, I can suggest a few blogging sites that might want your contributions. No offence intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hello...not to make too fine a point - but Henry Ford had three notable business failures before he had any particular notoriety. I would take this to an admin, as I honestly feel that this choir is worthy of note - however, I do not know how to do that. By the way, my reasons to including the pipe organ company, is that this particular organ - in operational form - is now exceedingly rare. For a gospel choir to use such an instrument, especially in combination with an electronic keyboard is more unusual. You make the point that 'unusual/unique' etc. does not make the subject a candidate for Wikipedia entry. Okay, I accept that. I never thought that I would face such opposition in creating a documenting this topic. Perhaps I am missing something, but today - I lost a bit of hope in the future of the net. I suppose I will 'throw in the towel'. Please remove the page and the original 'Rocksteady Choir' page that is archived. I will leave the submitted photos up (in Wikimedia Commons) - unless, they too are deemed to have too little validity for inclusion. - Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I figured I'd do everyone a favour by 'blanking'/erasing the page I created that has not met the standards of Wikipedia. I suppose it is not that simple, as the page seems to be back 'up' again. Perhaps if there was some support for keeping the page up by providing 'reliable references' I would do that, but it seems that my attempt at unbiased journalism for an unworthy topic has been deemed insufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Katiefelix2015: As mentioned in my message on your talk page, I'm afraid you can't do that. While you could !vote delete here and state that you would prefer your created article to be deleted, since a deletion discussion has been started on the article, now we have to all decide together. Who knows, if people votes to keep your article, your article can still stand. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 08:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Optakeover. While you created the page, at the bottom of every edit page is the following statement: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." In other words, you don't own the article, the Wikipedia community does. The best you can do is remove unreferenced content and associate it with the venerability policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2016 (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.