- 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, despite some heroic efforts to find an notability establishing source. Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Singing Cookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability issues. Google search leads in a circle. Most info about group exists on YouTube and their personal page. Page has also been orphaned since 2009 Canyouhearmenow 10:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:V or WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.singingcookes.com/biography.html and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I'm not fully convinced it is a copyvio; looking into this now.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to remove most of the article's text as it was copied from an old archive of their bio.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NortyNort is right, but this is the 12 June 2006 version, supporting the claim of copyvio.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to remove most of the article's text as it was copied from an old archive of their bio.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fully convinced it is a copyvio; looking into this now.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is a non copyvio version I could revert to. However, there is no sourcing extant and right now no indication of notability. Dlohcierekim 21:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if the Singing News chart position is verifiable, I don't presently see sufficient notability. As the current sourcing is from the subject. Willing to consider the merits of any sourcing that might save this. Dlohcierekim 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As the copyvio has been removed leaving a stub, I've stricken my speedy delete !vote. The Singing Cookes have been covered in books: Country music culture: from hard times to Heaven, Encyclopedia of American gospel music, The Old time Herald. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whpq, the publications you have listed are a great reference material, however, the "Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music" is a publication that the people who are included write their own entry. It is much like one of the Who's Who in American and you can pretty much write what you want as long as you pay the fee for the inclusion. The "Country Music Culture" looks more like a timeline of their performance than history of the group. I am still having a problem showing or agreeing to WP:Notability. I am familiar with this group's history and they are more of a regional act than per se the national brand. I am open for someone to show me the notability factor here to save this article. --Canyouhearmenow 12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Canyouhearmenow. Dlohcierekim 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have any documentation of paid inclusion for the Encyclopedia of American gospel music? -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The Encyclopedia of American gospel music is published by Routledge, a reputable publisher. As far as I can tell, the book itself is widely held in libraries. Unless there is evidence that one pays to be listed in that book, then I am inclined to accept it as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There is a review of McNeil that states, "McNeil's title will likely become the definitive work on the subject and fills a gap in a field that has had only sporadic reference documentation " This cite is probably what I need to switch to Keep, as I see inclusion in a relevant print encyclopedia as prima facie evidence of notability. Awaiting further discussion. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Of course, google does not want me to see much of this book, but the relevant paper article was authored by Ivan M Tribe. The paper article above has multiple italicized cites. A regional group, included in an encyclopedia, would still cross the bar to safely beach itself on notability's happy shore. Dlohcierekim 14:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I just called Routledge Publishing to inquire as to this publication. They did in fact confirm that at the time of print it was a pay for inclusion publication but it has not been published since 2005. There are no plans to publish or reprint it again. The inclusions into the book were of a technical merit and group staging moreover than information on the groups themselves. The information was to substantiate the history of Gospel music and the behind the scenes kind of info. Although I know that it does not have to be a continually published or printed encyclopedia of sorts to maintain notability status, I just wanted to throw that tid-bit out there. So, with that being said, there is no reference or way to show that this is a pay to print publication and if everyone feels it meets WP:Notability guidelines then I will have no other choice but to go with the flow of traffic here. I am still feeling that this group does not meet a preponderance of what is notability. But, I will go with the flow should everyone decide to keep the article. One must also realize also that the materials that we are looking at for saving this article is the material that is goign to be needed to build the article. Does anyone feel there is enough material contained in what has been found to build a comprehensive article? Input please? --Canyouhearmenow 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the crux-- is the encyclopedia really an encyclopedia or vanity press. It feels like an encyclopedia to an extent, but the Cookes's article takes a familiar tone, using the kids' first names. As much as I want to, I can't quite bring myself to change to "keep." We'll see what else surfaces. We'll see how the closing admins views this. Time permitting, I can look more closely at the publication data. Dlohcierekim 13:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dlohcierekim, this has been my dilemma all along. I knew about the periodical, but being an entertainment historian we give very little credence to its value because we know that the artists are the ones who write what is included or the periodical takes it from what the artists have written in other places. It is not in my opinion a reliable third party. However, since the periodical ended and will not be reprinted, one cannot make an argument about its validity because little is written about the periodical and how it gleans its information. The bottom line is; after looking at even the articles that are written in these periodicals, it still gives little credence to the subjects notability and even fewer sources to build a comprehensive article upon. I still feel this article should be deleted. Canyouhearmenow 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were the closing admin, I'd probably close it as "no consensus". But I leave it to those who work here. That's why they get the big salaries and company cars <cough />. Right now, we have one "keep," one certain "delete," and one ambiguous, hand wringing delete. I'm looking forward to see how it sorts out. Dlohcierekim 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dlohcierekim, this has been my dilemma all along. I knew about the periodical, but being an entertainment historian we give very little credence to its value because we know that the artists are the ones who write what is included or the periodical takes it from what the artists have written in other places. It is not in my opinion a reliable third party. However, since the periodical ended and will not be reprinted, one cannot make an argument about its validity because little is written about the periodical and how it gleans its information. The bottom line is; after looking at even the articles that are written in these periodicals, it still gives little credence to the subjects notability and even fewer sources to build a comprehensive article upon. I still feel this article should be deleted. Canyouhearmenow 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the crux-- is the encyclopedia really an encyclopedia or vanity press. It feels like an encyclopedia to an extent, but the Cookes's article takes a familiar tone, using the kids' first names. As much as I want to, I can't quite bring myself to change to "keep." We'll see what else surfaces. We'll see how the closing admins views this. Time permitting, I can look more closely at the publication data. Dlohcierekim 13:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I just called Routledge Publishing to inquire as to this publication. They did in fact confirm that at the time of print it was a pay for inclusion publication but it has not been published since 2005. There are no plans to publish or reprint it again. The inclusions into the book were of a technical merit and group staging moreover than information on the groups themselves. The information was to substantiate the history of Gospel music and the behind the scenes kind of info. Although I know that it does not have to be a continually published or printed encyclopedia of sorts to maintain notability status, I just wanted to throw that tid-bit out there. So, with that being said, there is no reference or way to show that this is a pay to print publication and if everyone feels it meets WP:Notability guidelines then I will have no other choice but to go with the flow of traffic here. I am still feeling that this group does not meet a preponderance of what is notability. But, I will go with the flow should everyone decide to keep the article. One must also realize also that the materials that we are looking at for saving this article is the material that is goign to be needed to build the article. Does anyone feel there is enough material contained in what has been found to build a comprehensive article? Input please? --Canyouhearmenow 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the controversy surrounding "Routledge Publishing", because I'm involved in another deletion process and one of this company's Who's Who books is one of the citations for that (other) article. I used to be regularly sent letters from a Marquis Who's Who company asking me to submit or edit entries about myself for their various books. I gradually discovered their books are vanity books (as this Forbes article more or less confirms http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0308/063.html). Marquis did, in fact, publish my (auto)biographical entry without requiring me to buy a copy of their book. They merely urged me to buy; they never insisted. I suspect this is how many vanity Who's Who publishers work. Note also that: 1) Marquis Who's Who books list famous as well as obscure persons so as to appear legitimate (if they didn't appear legitimate, they couldn't sell any copies), and that 2) Marquis Who's Who books are generally kept in libraries. (I checked the first one that appeared with me in it at the local university library, and when I asked the librarian where to find it, she groaned. Apparently, she knew all about it.) TheScotch (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TheScotch, that is the same with the publication in question now. It's information is gleaned the same way as the Who's Who series. Artists are asked to submit their stories and bio materials. Essentially allowing them to write their own press without having a third party to verify accuracy. This is where I have an issue that this periodical should not be allowed for consideration for verifiability because it would fail Wikipedia's rules for reliable third party sourcing. This particular periodical is a behind the scene of technics and stories written by the artists or groups. The artists were then encouraged to buy the publications in order to boost popularity or promotional tear sheets. Hence the reason I have a problem with these particular publications being used to show notability for this group. This publication is not being printed any longer more less because it probably did not sell enough copies to the artists that were included. That is the history of this type of publication. Without this publication being used, this group would fail WP:V or WP:GNG. I am waiting for the final decision to see where this goes. --Canyouhearmenow 11:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be interesting. I'm still for deletion. Dlohcierekim 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Del - Given the issue with paid inclusion for the Encyclopedia of American gospel music, I've reconsidered my position. For me, it was that source that established notability with the others supporting it; the keystone if you will. Without it, I can't see notability being established, even with the other sources I found. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2011 (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.