Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantus Musicus


 * 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. Per the analysis of the text refs that shows them to not be significant coverage. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cantus Musicus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I put up the request on 27 August 2018 because it does not comply with encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia and not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Other than that, in the original contents (before I clean it up) filled with references "on Text based" which cant be verified. When I cleaned it up, I intended to re-do the article but I realised then that the article has no valid references and couldn't find sources. Today, not only the article is NOT being deleted but User talk:Atlantic306 (the proposed delete patroller) reinstated the old contents. --Jay (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO criteria for notability of musical groups. Yetisyny (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as has plenty of reliable sources book and magazine references which can be verified through a library. Text references are acceptable and should not be removed which the nom did, not all references or even any at all need to be web based, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Atlantic, have you really checked all the references given in the article? I spent 2 days trying to find sources for most of them but couldn't find. Some of the links pointing to "blank pages" or pages without the contents mentioned. As mentioned, I was trying to improve the article until I realized that most of the contents have no sources, in which we cant tell whether they are true. --Jay (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - as Atlantic306 stated as per text refs. There are a lot of refs that wouldn't be suitable, but sufficient that would be (reviews etc) for notability to met. Additionally, while there is often a concern that text refs can be used to hide a lack of notability, this definitely doesn't read or appear as such, even discounting any AGF Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nosebagbear, I was not referring to text reference only but overall contents and "link" references given - in which most are not accessible. Look at Germany embassy links and many more. I have searched on the net, some of the events mentioned cannot be found. Read my reply to Atlantic306. Secondly, the group is not noted enough but the contents are overrated. Some of them are based on "the author's opinion". Addition: The choir group has no website but a Facebook only. In their Facebook, they pointed Wikipedia as their website. It looks like it is used for marketing purposes --Jay (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Much of the sourcing comes from programs and interviews. In my opinion this very closely resembles original research. Further, the writing style is subjective, promotional, and over-detailed considering the claimed notability of the subject matter. I agree that wikipedia is being used here as a supplement for a website for the group, for advertising purposes, and that notability is not verifiably supported. Zortwort (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still thinking about this, but am currently inclined towards deletion. The references and the article itself are heavily "padded" with material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the choir. This section is a prime example. The sole reference provided there does not even mention this choir let alone support the assertion  There are multiple examples of these shenanigans in the references especially in the lead paragraph which asserts that various people have praised the choir. That and the obvious COI of the single-purpose accounts who are the principal editors of this article leads me to highly mistrust the putative contents of the offline sources. Basically, this is a small amateur choir that sings occasionally in church services and at minor events for charities, local organizations, and embassies. There is no evidence whatsoever that it passes any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Nor, is there much indication that it passes WP:GNG. Given that it has been in existence for 15 years and is still performing, there should be much more independent coverage available in the mainstream Malaysian press. All I have been able to find are two reviews in the "Community" section of The Star (2006 2017) and this one in the now online-only Malay Mail. References consisting of concert programs and announcements do not attest to notability. If this article is kept, it will need to be drastically pruned solely to what can be verified and will need a major copy edit for neutral point of view and encyclopedic content and tone. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per VdT, fails our notability requirements for organisations. Its own concert programmes and the like cannot be considered independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Some of the "references" are not even that. In the current version, there are 6 citations that merely repeat the name of the event (footnotes 2, 11, 14, 15, 25, 30). There are many others which fail to mention the choir at all, but simply link to biographies of people they have allegedly collaborated with or places where they have allegedly performed (footnotes 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 13, 40, 43, 45). Two more (those supporting alleged praise of the choir by various musicians) refer vaguely to an "interview" with the artist but give no indication that these interviews were ever published (footnotes 1, 5). This is what I meant above by the article being heavily (and misleadingly) "padded". Then we have footnote 49, a brief article in a local UK paper about an unfortunate woman who threw herself under a train. It mentions at the end in one sentence that she had been a former member of this choir when she was living in Malaysia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Cantus musicus" seems to be the latin for "a musical air" or "harmonious singing" . It appears in hundreds of sources in GBooks, though many cannot refer to this choir because they were published long before 2003. Even if this choir was not notable (no comment on that yet), we might well want this page name for its original meaning. James500 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Actually, "cantus musicus" is a later term for "cantus figuratus" and means the same thing . It is used in contrast to "cantus planus". If this article is kept, it should be disambiguated as Cantus Musicus (ensemble). Incidentally, there's a Swiss early music ensemble called "Cantus Figuratus". Voceditenore (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2018 (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.