Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossmen Drum and Bugle Corps


 * 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 redirect to List of DCI drum corps. Relisters commented that keep !votes were not grounded in policy and some were from an SPA, and an involved editor volunteered to tackle the issue. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossmen Drum and Bugle Corps

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is one of a number of fancruft DCI articles lightly sourced to its own website, the DCI website, and non-RS live event streamers and drum corps fan blogs. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News and Google Books finds no substantive mentions, merely appearances in performance lists and incidental mentions. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep:, as per nom, this article is lightly referenced to its own website. However, there is an extraordinary summary of 45 years of performances which has referencing. Covid-19 halted the last season. So, keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Covid-19 halted the last season. So, keep." I won't argue it, but I will say that's the most novel !vote in an AfD I've seen! Chetsford (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect? per nom. I don't see enough coverage about this team to justify a stand-alone article, but a list article of DCI teams may be reasonable. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, I believe that more sources could perhaps be drawn upon, but this corps has become one of the main 12 corps in Drum Corps International these past few years Why? I Ask (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this corps has become one of the main 12 corps in Drum Corps International these past few years Though a great achievement, this is not a policy-based argument for retention. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, The argument for deletion could realistically be made for any individual drum corps however, there exists too much information on each drum corps in their individual pages including a list of every known show and repertoire for each, history, traditions, titles, uniforms, etc. to justify removing one or all pages and consolidating them to a single article. Information from individual wikipedia pages are referenced widely across the drum corps community including in official media and amongst social circles. Ultimately, the presented argument could be made for ANY individual drum corps, but too much relevant information exists in the Crossmen page and in the other corps pages (and nowhere else as easily, as history, traditions, and show information is almost impossible to reliably find elsewhere) as well to fully justify deletion or redirection. Bioplarcomposer (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "the presented argument could be made for ANY individual drum corps" That's my plan. Chetsford (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, Going through and deleting all of the drum corps pages one by one disenfranchises an entire community of hundreds of thousands of people that follow a usually very active activity. Plus, see my argument for keeping as to why each page SHOULDN'T be deleted. Also, as much as they are a blight on the community, scandal articles follow GNG: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/drum-corps-george-hopkins-joel-moody-cadets-crossmen-sexual-misconduct-20180515.html. There is typically a local or regional news article for every corps at founding, a championship win, when there's a scandal, or whenever someone/something particularly "general interest" about the group wins the uplifting news lottery that week. It's also very much worth arguing that just because Halftime Mag or Flo Marching are activity-affiliated does not invalidate them from being "independent coverage" per GNG. See: https://halftimemag.com/tag/crossmen-drum-and-bugle-corps. Their content is often original journalism. I don't see Autoweek magazine blacklisted as a source on NASCAR articles, for example. Similarly, http://www.dcxmuseum.org is an independent site with no organizational affiliations to dci/dca/individual groups that I know of. That does not make it inherently "generally notable", but does address that this information is considered valuable and worth archiving, and as of now Wikipedia is the most comprehensive and reliable source for this information that exists. There's also a web of personae connected to Crossmen (and every other group) through various bios, sponsor notices, staff announcements, etc. See: https://www.yamaha.com/artists/andrewmarkworth.html Bioplarcomposer (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is typically a local or regional news article Sources must be demonstrated, not simply asserted.That does not make it inherently "generally notable", but does address that this information is considered valuable and worth archiving Please see what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There's also a web of personae connected to Crossmen (and every other group) through various bios, sponsor notices, staff announcements, etc. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.
 * Finally, try to not !vote multiple times, for the convenience of the closer. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources must be demonstrated, not simply asserted. See: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2019/07/21/band-competition-brings-students-from-around-the-world-to-san-antonio and https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Drum-Corps-takes-playing-seriously-782778.php. Bioplarcomposer (talk) 23:13 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The keep arguments are some of the least compelling I've seen in a long while, but without any further contribution from other Wikipedians, this is heading towards the meekest 'no consensus' close...hoping for increased contribution from other, established editors referencing policies and guidelines with a bold third relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of DCI drum corps. This should be part of a larger merge discussion concerning all the drum corps on that list page. They seem to be a middling team (29 finals, but 12 teams make the finals, and they've never won) with some weak, local-only coverage, so not convinced that this should be a standalone article, but conveniently there's an article this can be merged into. I foresee instead of List of DCI drum corps being a table, it can have a subsection for each team, and then all the team articles (except potentially the notable winning teams) merged/redirected there. ~EdGl talk 04:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "This should be part of a larger merge discussion concerning all the drum corps on that list page." I think redirect is a fine idea and I have no fundamental issue with the merge proposal, in theory, however, to implement a merge in a silo - absent the larger discussion mentioned - would result in the merged-to article consisting of a list of every drum corps that simply contained its name, except for Crossmen which would have paragraphs upon paragraphs of text. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I think we can do (and I volunteer to do) is to carefully copy content from those other articles and paste into the list article. Then we can evaluate the other articles (keep as standalone or redirect to the list page) on a case-by-case basis, using the result of this AfD as a precedent. Or we could just go the route of proposing a merger. Either way, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so a temporarily unbalanced page should be a non-issue. ~EdGl talk 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on EdGl's volunteering to merge the content of 50 individual pages into the single, list page and then AfD them all I have no problem with supporting with Redirect and Userfying this page to allow that to occur. Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.