Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plymouth-Canton Marching Band (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  So Why  11:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. A very selective merge to the school may be appropriate. All secondary sources are local. John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:BAND with significant coverage in numerous RSes, has won or placed 2nd or 3d in numerous competitions. This was kept in the previous AfD and it appears there is nothing new to suggest a different outcome. Gab4gab (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:BAND is not the applicable guideline here. As a high school music group, the primary goal is education, not performing. WP:ORG is clearly the applicable guideline, and there is no indication this group has been recognized outside Metro Detroit. And yes there has been significant change in the community's view on notability since 2007. ORG didn't even exist in 2007. This is a bloated article, filled with intricate detail most likely of little interest outside of people already connected with the subject, and largely meaningless outside the US. John from Idegon (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A review of past AfDs regarding marching bands indicates there is no consensus regarding the applicable guideline. Consensus has been reached based on GNG, ORG and BAND (& probably others). ORG did in fact exist back on 2007.  At the time of the previous nom of this band it was an English Wikipedia notability criteria.  Notability is based on existing sources, not the current state of an article. Gab4gab (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - as says, there is little consensus on the notability of marching bands.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. there may be little consensus on the notability of marching bands, but this one is clear enough. No first place in a national competition; any number of runner up positions are not the same as coming in first.  No apparent influence on the field in general.Absurd article, of no interest to anyone outside of the school. Extensive uncited material, most of it based upon mere opinion, such as: " however, the inclusion of this controversial pocket had gained widespread use as a holder of loose change". No notable alumni. No visible references outside the immediate area. No reason to expect there would be any. An opinion saying keep, because there's no consensus of standards is not an argument for keep, as it gives no reason that applies to the article in question.  DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way back when, I was in my award-winning high school marching band (which I see is still winning awards, Go Cardinals!).  But, really, it's a high school band.  I don't see anything in the article that makes me think it's anything more than that.  I agree that WP:BAND does not apply here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The existence of coverage in reliable sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. At that point, whether it passes WP:BAND is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that. However, it does not meet ORG, which it would need to for notability. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Meeting WP:GNG is sufficient even if it doesn't meet a specific, more narrow guideline. The WP:ORG page even notes that pages can meet the general notability criteria instead. So I'm not sure what your point is. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, SL, but you are mistaken. The only mention of GNG under ORG is that schools can be notable by simply meeting GNG. This is not a school, it is an organization within a school. Clearly GNG does not apply. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline". It does not apply only to organizations, companies, schools or bands. It applies to every article. There are many cases where a given thing X fails the notability guideline for that subject area yet passes GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking at WP:BAND we see that the guideline applies to "orchestras". Ok, this marching band is not an orchestra. But, it is every bit as large. I fail to see how an instrumental group of the same size as a typical orchestra doesn't qualify under WP:BAND simply because it uses instrumentation that is different than a typical orchestra. Reading WP:BAND, we see it says such ensembles may be notable if the ensemble "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." The Grand National Championship run by Bands of America is "most prestigious national marching band event available to high school marching bands". I can't see any reason for doubt that this championship would not qualify. The band for discussion here has won this national level competition not once, not twice, but THREE times, tied for second most ever. They've been 2nd twice, and 3rd twice. Any one of these 7 national level placings would have them qualify under WP:BAND. Yet, they've done it _7_ times. How many times does a band have to do this before they are notable? I was concerned about WP:AUD, but note coverage outside of their region with this, and others. I also note that finding a massive number of results is likely complicated by the band's last top three placing being in 2001...a decade and a half ago. I believe with the sources provided and available that WP:GNG is readily met (and yes, WP:GNG applies), as well as WP:BAND and WP:AUD. This article is badly, badly in need of a rewrite. There's a serious amount of puffery and fluff here. I mean seriously, discussing a third pocket being removed from the uniform and noting very little media attention over the event? Really? Regardless, the sad state of an article is NOT a reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2017 (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.