Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-American Boys Chorus


 * 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

All-American Boys Chorus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been around for eight years, yet in that time nobody has managed to provide any independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * keep . WP:DILIGENCE. Satisfies WP:GNG, especially in view of multiple sexual abuse scandals eg, although current article is an advert. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there is a discography, I'm not convinced that we've cleared the notability hurdle of significant discussion of the chorus. Sexual abuse scandals wouldn't give the group notability unless they were so widespread as to be an organizational issue (q.v. Penn State). I'm like RHaworth. The article has had time to be improved, but it keeps turning into puffery without independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A single scandal - shit happens, but a series of scandals is definitely an issue. Unfortunately a chorus boy, just as a cabin boy, is a well-known prey and "not news". In any case, sources are required, and I say, they do exist. AfD is not a cleanup. Once multiple independent sources are found, we are keepers.  Staszek Lem (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The article has been unsourced for 8 years, yet no editor chose to add reflist so they could be added. That, and in about ten minutes I found half a dozen sources and expanded the article about a third in size. Was Wikipedia's Deletion Policy #7 followed? In my opinion... no. Markvs88 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The new references help establish notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.