Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Crest Drum and Bugle Corps

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. Tone 19:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Pacific Crest Drum and Bugle Corps

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pacific Crest Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Although the contestation asserts that sources can be readily found for World-class drum corps, significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem. I am unaware of any site-wide consensus that simply competing at the DCI World level inherently confers notability, and the article notes that they have only competed in the second tier.. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep no problems with the article, and sources such as [1] and [2] establish notability. I don't see why they need to have placed first second or third to warrant a Wikipedia article. NemesisAT (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per above; as part of the whole; and because competitive success does not determine notability. Littledrummrboy (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• The mention in the local newspaper is nice, but a bit short of significant or widespread coverage that would establish notability for a global encyclopedia rather than simple existence, and the second link is a photo gallery, useless for GNG. And placement in national competition is explicitly a component of notability for musical acts per WP:BAND. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Bgsu98 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Local coverage on its own is not sufficient for a GNG pass, and as Acroterion points out, the photo gallery does not constitute SIGCOV. The keep vote above me is unconvincing, lacking any rationale whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep although agree there are grounds either way. Calling it a "walled garden" is a bit pejorative. Admittedly, a fairly niche community follows these, but this group has been around enough that it has notability in sources that might not be on-line. W Nowicki (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as there is enough sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2021 (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.