Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Music Association

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Gospel Music Association

[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)

The companies article has been around since 2004, seems to have lacked any sourcing since then, and nothing except routine coverage comes up in a search. Therefore, it fails WP:NCORP due to being a run of the mill, none notable organization. Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't a company, but a non-profit organization promoting the Southern Gospel music genre. This is a pretty simple WP:RESCUE; nothing unusual about the size of this article, either. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end I said organization and the notability guidelines in WP:NCORP are the same for organizations and companies anyway. So whatever you want to call it, it doesn't really matter. I don't know what your talking about or how me miss typing something is relevant at all. Sure though, lets keep an article because the person doing the AfD typed in the wrong word, because that's how things work here. Right. Also, how exactly is this a "pretty simple WP:RESCUE? I said there are no none trivial, reliable, in depth sources out there. So, there's nothing to rescue it with. I'd love for you to find some though. If you can't, you should change your vote. You really should anyway since it was partly based on the totally trash reason that the article should be kept because I miss typed something. I didn't say anything about the size of the article in the AfD either. It's almost like you didn't even read it except to nitpick a word. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The notability for this one is unclear. Definitely needs sources to cite, however, I'm not sure what there is in the way of significant coverage. I'm only finding trivial mentions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After additional searching, nearly all sources that actually discuss the association talk about its founding and how the earlier organization of the same name got absorbed by the GMA. Not really seeing anything standout here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've mentioned the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music. Also, pinging Walter Görlitz.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I see it getting a lot of passing mentions in articles about others. The Southern Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame gets better coverage, but I'm not sure if this notability can be inherited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Userfy - given the expansion that has happened at Gospel Music Association since its disastrous AFD, I see similar potential in expanding this article, particularly regarding its leadershipship. Notability isn't inherited; its also not based on the state of the article at the time of an AfD, but rather the topic itself. This one's not as obvious as with the GMA, but I do believe it is a notable topic per WP:GNG, if only just barely. (I'm not familiar with the topic at all, so have no desire to host a userfied form. Hopefully someone who is familiar with it will also see its potential.) BilCat (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the added reliable sources book sources that have significantly improved the article, such that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new content added by BilCat. The two references that are immediately accessible via Google Books — Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel and Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World Volume 8 — have direct coverage of the SGMA. I don't have immediate access to the other encyclopedias cited, but AGF suggests that collectively these demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:37, 11 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.