Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holyoke Caledonian Pipe Band

Holyoke Caledonian Pipe Band

 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Meets criteria 1 for notability, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Including the American Pelican Publishing Company, the Manchester University Press of the UK, the Springfield Republican, and Hartford Courant. Amongst those are citations establishing it as the oldest continuously operated pipe band in the United States, one which has participated in the Cowal Games. I could understand this being a { { refimprove } }, but none of those are self-published or band affiliated. In contrast to this and Manchester Pipe Band, a minimum 3 of the articles you've listed on your own user page have no 3rd party citations as of this writing, City of Seattle Pipe Band, Stonehouse Pipe Band, and City of Blacktown Pipe Band, some of which cite sources by members of said bands, or none at all. Please support your statement with additional information.--Simtropolitan (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message - I've realised from a few different responses (spread over a wide area) that there are significant differences of opinion on how notability works for piping related articles, and I might need to treat a bit more carefully rather than assuming that only a very few people care. Currently working out how to go about cleaning up these articles, and choosing which ones to nominate for deletion, in the future! Best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: As to that, please support yours by additional information. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", not just an airy claim that the band is the subject of the citations.  In point of fact, none of the viewable secondary citations give more than a namedrop to the subject.  Would you like to provide some reliable sources that do?  (That being said, unrelated articles listed on the nom's user page have nothing to do with this AfD.)   Ravenswing      14:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , they have everything to do with this matter- this is about consistency. If the bulk of piping articles must go that's one thing, but to cherrypick a few which offer independent sources while giving different treatment to those citing bands own websites, is unacceptable. And there are more than several sources which do in fact address this topic that fall within the purview of WP:Offline sources. All of these are searchable in the OCLC, Newsbank, and other reliable outlets. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. --Simtropolitan (talk) 21:40, 27 March 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.