Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spode Music Week


 * 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. First, I do recognize the expansion and sources that have been added to the article since its initial nomination more than a month ago, however since that addition there hasn't been much in the way of discussion debating if that is enough to bring the article up to the standard as required per the general notability guidelines, just a weak keep and a suggestion to check the Wayback Machine. So the question remains, does a handful (or two handsful) of articles about a Catholic music week in The Catholic Herald constitute significant coverage. There is no argument here that it unequivocally does, however there is a lot of arguments that the article should be retained by virtue of it being a charity, it existing, its age, or that an encyclopedia should be all inclusive. These arguments are blatantly incorrect as per what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore there is the conflict of interest issue, while COI does not preclude people from editing, it does mean that their arguments must be taken with a grain of salt, especially when the arguments are in favour of retaining an article by virtue of the subject being a charity, it existing, etc. So in summary of the discussion, we have two people saying delete, this doesn't meet the standard, a few COI and SPAs saying keep based on no existing Wikipedia criteria and one person saying maybe the article could be improved and expanded and another saying have a look here. So, for today we delete, however given the potential sources, I offer to restore (personally, and upon request) the article and move it to the draft space, where it can be developed, sourced, and notability established prior to moving back into article space. kelapstick(bainuu) 12:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Spode Music Week

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:ORG or WP:GNG. WP:COI creator removed WP:PROD, wanting to know what is needed for improvement. To me, the complete lack of sources and evidence of notability, especially after having been tagged for notability, show that this should be deleted. I always hope, especially with worthy organisations, to be proved wrong. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The trouble with all you editors at wikipedia is that you assume we are all computer savvy enough to understand how these things work. I've spent ages (years) trying to understand your objections and how to respond to them. No-one can simply send me an email and ask can you? - no, you have to use a load of technical terms and bury things on pages I don't know how to access. No-one has responded in previous years when I have asked after a tag has been added. A friend in America had to help me get here. Spode Music Week has been going for 61 years. We have sung live from the week on Radio 3 (albeit back in the 1960's). There is a book "Hawkesyard to Hengrave" published about the week on the 50th anniversary and just this year it was the subject of an article in "The Catholic Herald" Newspaper. Why are these not considered sources that illustrate the week is real? Spode Music Week is a registered charity and listed on the Charity Commission webpage. We wouldn't be there if we weren't a proper organisation. If the objection is the fact that I have a connection to the week, please explain the problem with that. Many wikipedia pages are written by someone with a close knowledge of the subject they are writing about. Why would it make sense for the article to be written by someone who didn't have? Finally, please explain what harm the page is doing here? It's not an advert. It doesn't proselytise. It tells people about an event with a 60 year history. You have articles on other events that don't have such a history. It tells people about a registered charity. You have other articles on registered charities. FatClone (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied the above comment by from Talk:Spode Music Week to here. FatClone, you may want to add either the word keep or comment at the start of it. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Response FatClone, I'll answer some of your questions as best I can. The links I've given in my nomination show the most relevant parts of WP:NOTABILITY for an article on a charity - WP:ORG and WP:GNG. These show you the criteria for an article on an organisation such as this. This is an encyclopaedia, and we do not include every charity or organisation, and decisions are made on whether they meet the notability criteria, not on whether they are worthy and simply being a registered charity and listed on the Charity Commission website does not establish that it is an organisation which would be included in an encyclopaedia. Whether 'Hawkesyard to Hengrave' is considered a reliable source or not, I can't tell, but if you look at WP:SOURCE, it will help you. If it is self-published or published by the charity, it would be a WP:PRIMARY source.

As for your conflict of interests, please see the links I gave in my nomination, WP:COI and WP:SPA. People involved with an organisation are not banned as such from creating an example on them, but this is an encyclopaedia. WP:COI says that: COI editing is strongly discouraged. It defines conflict of interests as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. The conflict of interests is not a reason for deleting the article, but it is a concern.

No one has tagged this article as an advert. I find it hard to understand how you would feel it is completely unclear why this article's notability has been questioned - the article has had an 'unreferenced' tag on it for over six years - it actually has a reference at the bottom, so that tag is no longer strictly too, but it still is lacking in sources to prove notability. WP:SOURCE can help you get an idea of what sources are accepted on Wikipedia. You discuss proof that the week is 'real'. This isn't our focus is an encyclopaedia - it is whether it is WP:NOTABLE. The Catholic Herald article sounds like a

As for other editors not sending you an e-mail about an article, people often wouldn't do that. That is because the creator does not WP:OWN the article - it is a contribution to an encyclopaedia, and any editors would judge it and edit it based on it being an encyclopaedia article. They would be judging it objectively - they would not be emotionally involved as you are, one of the reasons why editing on organisations you are involved in is strongly discouraged. Of course, if you have, historically, left messages on people's talk pages (I don't know if you have), then it would be polite of them to respond. However, not every editor edits all the time, and they are all volunteers. I also see from your own talk page, that there are clear instructions right at the top for accessing the 'help me' section.

You also talk about the fact that there are other articles on charities and other articles which you see as of similar worth. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument on whether this article is notable. As you have been having difficulty understanding what the notability criteria of Wikipedia is, it is also likely that many of these articles do meet the criteria. However, the 'Spode Music Week' article has been tagged for notability for over six years - there has been plenty of opportunity and time given for the article to develop or its notability to be established, not just by you, but by anyone. I hope I've answered your questions in detail and that this has been of some help to you. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the one reference that might constitute significant coverage is the book by Sherlaw-Johnson who's family successively held the position of secretary since the event's inception until 2012 (according to the article). We require independent sources and someone writing about their own family's event obviously isn't independent enough by our standards. The largest ever group was 126 people and that was almost 40 years ago. That's the size of a (very) small business conference or school camp. Those sorts of things just don't get significant coverage in mainstream press and the available sources confirm that here.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked for help ( a few times) when the article was first tagged six years ago as I did not know what (or how) to do anything about that then). I probably didn't ask in the right place, as despite your assertion that these things are easy to understand, they weren't to me. No response was forthcoming to any of my queries and so I left the page as it was. I didn't understand what was wanted, no-one was answering my points and the page remained (albeit with the annoying tag). Thats why it remained as it did for 6 years. You mention in your response the Catholic Herald article, but that ends in an unfinished sentence. Could you please explain? FatClone (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can I just butt in here? The point of an encyclopaedia is that it tells you everything. This means that any topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There shouldn't be a rule about 'it's not important enough'.  Also, the way I see it, if it's a registered charity, it should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a place that people go to when they want to find out about stuff, and that includes details of registered charities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.73.244 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's decidedly not the way Wikipedia works. There are clearly defined policies relating to notability, verifiability and sourcing. You're allowed to disagree but an opinion in a deletion discussion that amounts to "I don't think Wikipedia should be what it is" won't go very far.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing encyclopaedias with search engines. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC
 * No I am not. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. Fro Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to contain the knowledge. Therefore, 'being a registered charity' is sufficient for an article in Wikipedia. Also, since Wikipedia is crowdsourced, 'being interesting enough that somebody wrote an article and put it on Wikipedia' is also good enough.
 * No, no and no. Again, you need to read some of the long-established policies around here before arbitrarily (and incorrectly) declaring what Wikipedia is and isn't.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)



I made significant changes to Spode Music Week between 4-6 September 2014, with the aim of addressing the concerns raised regarding notability and sources. Have those concerns been fully addressed now? If so, can the entry no longer be earmarked for deletion? Carlolingian (talk) 08:08, 13

September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to work on the article, but nothing has been found that establishes notability. Which WP:NOTABILITY criteria do you feel it might meet? Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has a Wikipedia entry and associated with several organisations which have entries I find it extraordinary that Spode Music Week should be questioned on grounds of notability. This was a leading organisation in the Catholic world where George Malcolm (qv) Robert Sherlaw Johnson, Noelle Barker and other leading artists were regular teachers. It should be reinstated. Nicholas Kenyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyon01 (talk • contribs)


 * , (the WP:SPA commenting above), which aspect of WP:NOTABILITY do you feel it meets, and is this WP:V verifiable? Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Boleyn, I am very surprised that you still have not found anything in the revised article which establishes notability. With reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I would consider the reference sources "The Tablet", "The Catholic Herald" and "English Heritage" in particular to be external sources which: 1) provide "significant coverage"; 2) are "reliable"; 3) are "secondary sources", and 4) sufficiently "independent of the subject". I have only cited a selection of extracts from these sources. Many other existing Wikipedia articles do not provide as many relevant and reliable references or external links as this article does. You have so far not been very specific about what you object to. Carlolingian (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I suspect the sources from The Catholic Herald may be significant enough to qualify here, unfortunately their archive is currently inaccessible and won't be back until "November".  The article has been up for years already, I don't see the harm in waiting another couple of months so we can take a look at those sources and see if they're significant enough to keep this article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment At least some of the Catholic Herald Archive is itself archived at the Internet Archive, e.g., . I recommend people give the Wayback Machine a shot. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 30 September 2014 (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.