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. Valley2city^‽ 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States[edit]

List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not cite any reliable sources and seems to merely be a directory for advertising one's music ensembles; The creator of the article continually adds "spammy" external links to the article and claims they are references. Probably also borderlining on WP:LINKFARM, but I'm not entirely sure. Eugene2x►^talk 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What? We can't even put together and source a decent list of music ensembles now? Certainly an encyclopedic, sourceable topic, no matter what the current state of the article. A quick glance at the article history gives off the strong smell of content dispute/edit war/personal acrimony. Assuming all due good faith and all. Dekkappai (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Per WP:NOTDIR. List of non-notable entries without independent, reliable sources. I've yet to go through all the links in the article. So far, the majority are to official web sites of the ensembles. I've found one that's has a passing mention of an ensemble. There's also a book reference that requires a questia account to determine what it actually verifies, if anything. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I see are the ones that link to the ensemble's own website. I didn't even mention notability; but now that you point that out I see there's trouble with that issue too. By the way, don't you use that same phrase on every article of yours that gets nominated for deletion? Just pointing something out... :) Eugene2x►^talk 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do aim to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article about this subject possible, and the references removed without consensus do verify the existence of the various Chinese ensembles, their current directors, the the date the ensemble was established, etc. As such, they are the best references available, and are certainly not prohibited under our very reasonable WP guidelines regarding references. Let's work together to make this the best article possible. Summarily removing references and attempting to delete an article entirely does not enhance our encyclopedia for our users. Badagnani (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which sources are reliable, and what aspects of WP:N have been met. This is not a WP:VOTE. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you removed, then removed, again, then removed again, then removed again without prior discussion (isn't that called edit warring?), are reliable and the best available (verifying the existence of each ensemble, its current director, date of establishment, etc.), and all aspects of notability have been met. Badagnani (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? Sites that are made by the ensemble itself are not reliable sources, none of them can establish any notability, and it's basically a directory or linkfarm with a bit of extra information. Almost every editor here agrees there are numerous problems with the article. Eugene2x►^talk 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:EL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKFARM. If a good number of the ensembles had Wikipedia articles there might be some point to this but they do not. A (very few) of the directors have articles but none of the ensembles. The article appears to be mainly a vehicle for links to the ensemble's websites. This is not appropriate. A link to the official site of a group is acceptable in the group's article, but here is it is a breach of WP:LIST. The article fails WP:SAL Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group since the entries neither have articles nor are verified with a reference to a reliable source (ie something other than their own website). SpinningSpark 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = Spinningspark appears to have the right of it. Only one ensemble even has a Wikipedia article, Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York, and that article is itself completely unreferenced and possibly non-notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd part coverage, WP:LINKFARM, WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – clear linkfarm. MuZemike 06:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Flopsy Mopsy and/or Cottonmouth, but I will change my opinion if anyone can demonstrate there are 3 or more notable Chinese music ensembles in the US. Then I would replace this content with the list of 3+. Nerfari (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a notable list of this type could be created, but it needs to establish the notability of each item included, which the present article does not.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.