Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungry For Music


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungry For Music

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This charity appears to fail the applicable notability guideline. I am unable to locate independent, reliable sources as discussed in the guideline; a GNews search turns up just hits from blogs and PR sources. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Here's an article: "HUNGRY FOR MUSIC", from The AcoustiCana Journal Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is listed third in a Google search written as "news, Hungry For Music", here's the link. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another link, from NPR "Instruments Of Good: The Healing Power Of Music", found by clicking on the ninth link from the Google search listed directly above this comment. Clearly, there are reliable sources available, they just have to be searched for more comprehensively. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding the notability of NPR, from the "About NPR" section of their website:
 * "this is npr - A thriving media organization at the forefront of digital innovation, NPR creates and distributes award-winning news, information, and music programming to a network of 900 independent stations. Through them, NPR programming reaches 26.8 million listeners every week." Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. That Acousticana article, that's a blog post more than anything else. The NPR article, that's an entirely different matter and adds notability to the subject. Note to Northamerica: I assume that no one here needs to be convinced that NPR is a reliable source--conversely, citing NPR on NPR does not make it one. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Acousticana Journal is NOT a blog. Please refer to: EDITORIAL • “WHAT IS ACOUSTICANA”, "“The Acousticana Journal” is a publication, a forum and a means to support a musical art form...". Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also: EDITORIAL • “PIGEON HOLES & DOGMA”, from Acousticana Journal. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - So, is anyone going to actually add this NPR citation to the article? :-) If not, then I say Delete for lacking sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! &mdash;  02:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The NPR link was just added to the article, as a reliable source that serves to establish notability of the topic, and to verify information within the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Topic meets all requirements stated in WP:NONPROFIT, period. Specifically, "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." The topic easily passes both. It's uncertain why a relisting occurred, because the basis of the nomination has been nullified by the availability and addition to the article of reliable sources. Hopefully the administrator who relisted this in AfD isn't just counting votes without checking the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has one source that is reliable and arguably independent of the subject. This hardly seems to be an adequate degree of coverage to merit suggesting that the relisting admin is being negligent. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please consider moving your recent comments below the last relist notice for chronological clarity. The article you suggested from Acousticana was written by "Echo," whose profile includes a "posts by Echo" section. I do not know if the publication meets the definition of a blog, but it pretty clearly is not a WP:RS. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, what a publication says about itself is pretty irrelevant with respect to reliability. VQuakr (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rather than nitpicking, why not spend your time to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead? Check out the article now. Many more reliable sources and inline citations added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding the statement that the article has "one source that is reliable and arguably independent of the subject" - which one? Should people have to guess which one? That's moot now anyway, per the addition of more reliable sources to the article and the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here are more sources: "Hungry for Music!." from Bisnow - Local Business News, whom, per their website, "is a journalistic news source which accepts no payment for featured interviews. It is supported by conventional advertisers clearly identified in the right hand column." Article in the Milwaukee Journal. Another from the Maryland Gazette: here and here, another from connectionnewspapers.com here, here's another right here, and another (summary from the Washington Times here, and one from the Washington Post here. Check out this search for more resources available on the internet: Google search titled: "Hungry for Music" nonprofit. The Washington Post article is particularly reliable. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Topic meets all requirements stated in WP:NONPROFIT, period, per available reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yet more information, reliable sources, and inline citations added to the article, in a manner of minutes. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Northamerica1000 has done a great job in finding sources to prove its notable.  D r e a m Focus  12:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks good. JFHJr (㊟) 08:26, 20 September 2011 (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.