Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nauvoo Brass Band

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:BAND. almost all coverage is from one newspaper [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article does not fulfill any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Subject is a small, local band. Could conceivably fulfill criteria 7 of WP:MUSICBIO but additional citations would be needed. Insignificance of the article is highlighted by the navbox at the bottom of the article which deals with national Mormon bands and choirs to which this non-notable addition has been made. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the modern recreation is not notable in and of itself, as it is just a commemoration of the origional group that existed from 1842 to the late 1800's. However the origional organization from the Nauvoo era of the LDS Church and the Mormon pioneer era in Utah is very notable. The article has now been somewhat expanded to demonstrate this, though more is needed. Additionally there are approximately 22200 Google hits on "Nauvoo Brass Band". -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping an article. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and I did not state that I though it was; however Google hits can be useful by providing a rough idea about how well-known/obscure a particular topic is. Additionally, as the nominator, have you recently reviewed the article to see if your initial concerns have been adequately addressed with the article in it's current state? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The one newspaper mentioned in the nomination is the Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church. As the Nauvoo Brass Band is a defunct historic organization (with an modern commemoration), looking at modern newspaper resources may not be the best way to ascertain it's significance. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional academic and independent references have been added. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. It does appear to technically satisfy the general notability criteria, although I do have concerns about just how independent the sources are from the subject at hand. I suspect that a much more solid case could be made for merging this and the other stubs listed in the {{LDSmusic}} template into a more general article on LDS musical organizations (the Tabernacle Choir and possibly the Symphony stand well enough on their own), as the depth and breadth of information covering this particular topic appear to be sparse at best. Shereth 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article now has been expanded significantly since it was nominated. Although I would have agreed to delete the original article, the current version clearly establishes notability. References have been expanded beyond one newspaper and now include a few books and newspapers. – jaksmata 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Notable as a historic entity -- but the modern recreation deserves only a modest mention. I like the idea above about merging into a general article on LDS use of music -- historic emphasis, hymns, organizations, etc. WBardwin (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2010 (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.