Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra


 * 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any indication that this group meets WP:NMUSIC, under either of its names, "Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra" (MMO) and "Bonne Amie Musical Circle" (BAMC). I know they're quite an old group (going back to 1900), but I did a very thorough check for sources in the historical databases that are available to me, and couldn't find anything substantial.

There were no in-depth sources on Google News or Google Books. I checked all 92 hits for MMO on Newspapers.com and they were all trivial mentions such as "so-and-so, who played with MMO for years" or "the MMO will appear at such-and-such an event" - even going back to their inception in the 1900s. The two Newspapers.com hits for BAMC were trivial also. There were seven hits on Highbeam for MMO and all were trivial. There were no Highbeam hits for BAMC. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I appreciate the deletion nominator's reporting on their efforts to find substantial sources, but still, surely the group, formed in 1900, has significant coverage offline or not easily accessible.  Notability is not temporary; offline sources are fine;  it is highly reasonable to expect sourcing exists.  It could be tagged for more sourcing, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.  The article includes strong claim of significance:  "They are the oldest ensemble of their kind in the United States."  There is nothing promotional or commercial or directory-like or otherwise bad about the article. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, per WP:NEXIST: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." We cannot simply assume that there must be sources, just because it is old. We don't have to be able to access them fully, or hold them in our hands, but we have to have reasonable indication that they actually exist, which at this stage, we don't.
 * Just to show I really have exhausted all possible avenues: in response to your comment, I went out and checked the Google.newspapers archive of the Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Sentinel, both of which had nothing. I also checked Newspaperarchive.com (link goes to my search setup), and every single one of the 70 hits generated there was an advertisement for a performance, rather than any kind of substantial discussion or profile about the band.
 * The article may not be bad or promotional, but we are built to summarize and reflect reliable sources, and if we have nothing to summarize, we can hardly maintain an article per WP:V. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Not a lot, to be sure, but these may or may not be enough depending on interpretation of SIGCOV:
 * Mandolin Orchestra set to celebrate concert centennial. Ruppa, Paul. Milwaukee Sentinel; 19 Apr 1990 (552 words)
 * Link to past provided by Mandolin Orchestra. Joslyn, Jay. Milwaukee Sentinel; 11 June 1990: 1-6. (257 words)
 * MILWAUKEE MANDOLIN ORCHESTRA THRIVING IN ITS 100TH YEAR. Michael Parrish. Chicago Tribune; 02 Feb 2001: 7.28. (407 words)
 * MANDOLINS MAKE A COMEBACK, BUT THERE'S STILL REASON TO FRET. Adam Bernstein. Chicago Tribune; 22 Jan 1999: 1. (1485 words, only a few hundred might be considered directly related to the subject) Bakazaka (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bakazaka, thank you for sharing those results. I haven't seen them myself, but I assume that either of the two Chicago Tribune constitutes significant coverage that should meet the standard.  This is specific credible evidence that sourcing exists, even if it has not actually been incorporated into the article, which should suffice per AFD guidelines. --Doncram (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , the article has now been updated with the sourcing I could find. It's still quite stubby, but at least it's sourced. The mentions of the group in the second Tribune article in the list above were not, in my opinion, enough to count. The first Milwaukee Sentinel article I listed above is mostly about the broader history of mandolin groups, with little content specific to this group, and it's by someone affiliated with the group (Ruppa, who did his M.Mus. thesis on local music groups, then apparently became the MMO's director) so I left it out. The other two seem fine. I also added some academic references, one of which is by the same Ruppa person, and the other of which only mentions MMO briefly but confirms some basic facts. Bakazaka (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for doing all that! From what you say I think that Ruppa's thesis and other writings would be very relevant to use in developing the article, too.  Although notability sticklers might argue that Ruppa is not independent so those writings don't contribute much or at all towards estabilishing notability.  IMO a non-independent source can contribute to notability somewhat.  And, this person is apparently an expert on the narrow topic, an authority, and we can use experts.  And non-independent stuff certainly can help develop out the article, which, indirectly supports the validity of having a Wikipedia article, i.e. does go to notability, IMHO.  So perhaps you could add more, perhaps after this AFD is settled.  Thanks so much for you additions! --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:BAND as "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." Based on the source descriptions of pre-1990 activity for this group as being mostly small and private, there probably isn't much available press coverage from the first ninety years of their existence. But since 1990 or so they have been covered multiple times in multiple RS outlets by multiple writers over several years, which seems to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 20 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.