Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Music Association (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Music Association[edit]

[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)

This article was just deleted today via AfD. A request was made at WP:RFUD to userfy the content, which I agreed to when the closing admin for the AfD did not object. I userfied the content, and it was quickly edited a little and turned around back into mainspace. I thought more would go into changing it. Sourcing does not appear super strong, and I do not want to be a party to an "end around" on the deletion process. So, this can only stay if a second AfD allows it to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Just as last time. The discussion, with additional sources, about why it should never have been deleted is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 10#Gospel Music Association, but in short, sources are present and its award itself makes it notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, just as last time, not all of the relevant projects have been informed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not every semi-related Wikiproject has to be informed do they? (I'm genuinely curious) --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was raised as part of the refund discussion, but certainly, the Christian Music project should have been notified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, in the deletion review you mentioned that the article should be vetted by people "who know what they're doing". Would not the Christian music WikiProject be one of the places to start to find those people? (FYI, I'm coming late to this discussion, after the first AfD, so I'm considering myself one of those "vetters").--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify It to someone's userspace. Then restore it later when the sourcing is better and it has been properly reviewed for notability. Since the sourcing in the article just isn't there yet to meet WP:NCORP's notability standards. Drafting it is the only fair compromise between deleting it or potentially keeping a non-notable article. Plus, it is what people in the deletion review wanted before it was restored. If drafting isn't an option then Delete it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG have the same base criteria: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you please indicate how the cited sources are not multiple and independent and secondary, and that the coverage is not significant? The subject has dedicated entries in two separate encyclopedias, in addition to discussion in books and in at least one magazine article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some of the "added" sourcing is just more referencing to the same sources that where already determined to be trivial. Which doesn't improve anything in the article or speak to notability. source #4, #5, #8 (all new sources) seem trivial. That leaves only 2 sources that might or might not be trivial and therefore count for notability. My guess is that they are trivial. Since the person who restored the article added other trivial sources (included more references to sources that had already been vetted in the original AfD). Also, 14 of the 20 references are to just three sources. Which seems like ref bombing. One of them, source #1, I know for a fact doesn't have enough in-depth coverage for three citations because I own the book. I'm pretty sure from research I did for the original AfD that the same goes for the Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music. I have zero reason to believe the other books that are being cited are any different (again, the restorer already added other trivial sources). On source #2 (an extract which can be found here) it seems the company is only mentioned in one paragraph and that the rest is about the GMA Awards. As I'm sure you know, notability isn't inherited. You can tell it's trivial anyway by what it's citing in the article "there are about 4,000 members worldwide", "The GMA was founded in 1964 to promote Gospel music", "The GMA held GMA Week (or GMA Music Week) around Nashville, Tennessee." blah blah blah Etc Etc. It's all pretty run of the mill stuff that doesn't live up to WP:NCORP. I'd 100% love to see a counter argument though. Again, draftify it and bring it back later when it's actually notable. There's zero reason not to. Unless you know it's not notable and will never come back if it is. Otherwise, what's the problem with drafting it so it can actually be sourced properly? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My counter-argument is that the coverage is significant by the standards of WP:GNG, which is what WP:CORP points back to. I think the point of difference here is over what constitutes "trivial", and I would argue that the coverage is not trivial by the examples given in WP:GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standards are a little higher for articles about corporations or organizations. What's trivial for them aren't necessarily trivial in other cases. Things like membership numbers are definitely trivial whatever the article is about though. Personally, I think the more important thing is to judge the how in-depth the particular source is because we can nitpick what trivial means, but it's pretty clear when something does or doesn't contain in-depth coverage. None of the sources in this case are in-depth. Again, if it's notable what would be the problem with drafting it until the sourcing is better? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP specifically says "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" is an example of significant coverage, and this has entries in two different encyclopedias. Please also see the article as expanded, with more details of its history. So it meets WP:GNG and at least one additional criterion of WP:NCORP.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of the article is substantively discussed in multiple independent reliable sources, four of which are cited in the article. In addition to those, you have this book and this encyclopedic entry. That puts it at six RSes that discuss the subject. I'm sure when you factor in more offline print media, there's a lot more, but 6 is plenty for establishing notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The last RfC was handled terribly and was frankly nonsensical. As I said at the other page: Deletion discussion began on April 1 but the main WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music, was never notified, nor was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. In 10 minutes of research I found over 28,500 articles on Newspapers.com from 1969 to 2020, coverage in Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Billboard magazine, Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel, 6,110 hits in Google News and 472 in Google Scholar. All this took was 10 minutes. Even a modicum of research would have allowed the page to be improved with any of literally tens of thousands of reliable sources, but because the relevant editors were never notified the listing was barely discussed and closed as delete with little input. Toa Nidhiki05 03:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was nonsensical about the original AfD and which of the 28,500 newspaper articles have in-depth coverage that passes WP:NCORP? Or should we just take your word that they all do? Personally, I looked at a lot of them and they where all trivial. I'm pretty sure the other people who voted delete did their due diligence checking sources also. Despite your baseless accusations that we didn't. Like you would know anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when you kick off your argument against notability by asking "which of the 28,500 newspaper articles . . ." you convince most reasonable editors that you really don't have a case. Face facts -- you did a piss-poor job of searching, and apparently didn't check Google Books (which shows coverage in Billboard going back decades) or Google Scholar (which shows, for example, coverage of race-centered disputes involving the GMA in an academic press book) at all. Learn from your mistakes -- this AFD is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to argue for anything. I just thought if you found in-depth articles I wasn't able to maybe you could provide them so we could add them to the article. What's piss poor and an embarrassment to Wikipedia is your un-constructive attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: I found another Billboard source. There very likely are more.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again about the awards, not about the company. This is really tiring. People should have just respected the outcome of the original AfD. This one is more bias and slanted then the first one was. Now that it's already gone through a second AfD due to false claims of the first one not being a proper process, why should the outcome of this one be respected whatever it is and there not just be a third AfD etc etc.? I'm sure the keep people would throw a fit if there was another one. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the editor who restored the article and added most of the additional sourcing currently in the page. I had the page draftified shortly after its deletion, racked it with a number of high-quality sources, and restored it in short order. I was not expecting the tidal wave of attention it has now gotten - I thought I was doing a simple job of article rescuing, just a few hours too late. I didn't even know a DRV had been opened when I did so. Given that the article now has references to ~~three~~ four other encyclopedias with articles on this institution, I guess I'm not sure I could ever meet Adamant's WP:HEY standard, but I think an article in its current state would probably never have been AfD'ed in the first place. Chubbles (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was essentially there after you added the sources to it and restored the article. It definitely is now that more have been added. I just felt that they where a tad trivial and I would have liked to see the article expanded a little more in the process of adding more references. Which it seems like 3family6 has done. So, I'm mostly fine with it now. I still would have liked to have seen the process followed, but it is what it is. It's not on you that it wasn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there looks to be plenty of references to show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obviously notable subject with piles of substantive coverage. The arguments against notability were greiviously -- in particular, saying that the organization isn't notable, just the activities it engages in are, is absurd. Common sense is seriously missing from AFD these days. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Four different sources with the word "Encyclopedia" in the title indicates that the subject is encyclopedic. If you nitpick every source that someone adds, and make it clear that nothing they add will ever be sufficient for you, then their only option is to keep adding more sources and try to satisfy you. Then you say they're refbombing. This is not productive. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Those who called for deletion in the previous discussion obviously made no effort at WP:BEFORE. They should be ashamed of themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable topic per GNG. As a niche subject, it's not hard to see why it languishes in such a bad state for so long. Hindsight is 20/20, but at least this article got a second chance through the review process. - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps a snow close is appropriate per WP:HEY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very notable association and readily improvable. It's annual awards are highly regarded in Christian Contemporary Music circles. I only noticed the previous AfD of the article after the article's deletion. I would have objected to the deletion in the first place and vehemently if I had known about it. Thanks User:Walter Görlitz for his efforts in reviving the discussion. I second his request for closing as per WP:HEY. werldwayd (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I also only noticed the first AFD after the article's deletion, and would have supposed keeping it. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough knowledge of the topic to feel I could rescue it myself. Thanks also. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of sources reflecting its notableness, oh, and a big thankyou to the nominator (hi Muboshgu:)) for bringing this to afd so that there is now no doubt of its notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a longstanding, major music association for Gospel music, reaching across many denominations. It has a Grove entry, fer cryin' out loud! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to say that doesn't sway everybody. Chubbles (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With entries in multiple encyclopedias, this looks super strong. Hallelujah! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 17 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.