Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Music Association


 * 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. Google hits are not a valid arguments for inclusion, only reliable sources are.  Sandstein  06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Gospel Music Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The articles subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines in WP:NCORP. One of the sources is a dead link, one doesn't have anything to do with it, and the referenced book, which I have a copy of, doesn't mention them (Unless my pdf application's search function is broken). Outside of those, doing a WP:BEFORE only turns up trivial coverage and passing mentions. None of which meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG standards of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Adamant1 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Dead links are not a reason to ignore a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I just did a search of new for Gospel Music Association and found hundreds of entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't ignore the dead links, but them being dead does factor into if there is currently existing reliable in-depth coverage of the company or not. Which is what AfDs are about. On the hundreds of entries you found, great for you. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. I said sources came up when I looked, just that they where trivial coverage or weren't otherwise reliable. Notability goes beyond just the existence of sources. If you have sources that meet WP:NCORP's notability standards, 100% contribute them. Without them though, this company isn't notable. Let alone should it be speedy kept just because of some Google hits. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A Google search of the organization doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable sources. As a matter of fact, most of the sources about the organization available online are either primary or unreliable. News stories about Kirk Franklin boycotting the organization is not enough to justify a separate article.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Also, can we ban people from !voting "Speedy" anything?  HighKing++ 11:21, 9 April 2020 (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.