Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preaching chords

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While there's no consensus on whether this ought to be a separate article, there seems to be no wish for it to be outright deleted. Discussion on whether and where to merge can, of course, be continued outside of AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preaching chords

[edit]

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

Preaching chords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to my WP:BEFORE, non-notable (fails WP:GNG). Previously de-prodded. (The term is real, but appears only as passing mentions, e.g. this PhD diss and the sources in the article.) Should potentially be redirected to Black sermonic tradition as an ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: Referenced in many books, articles, videos, and literally has its own Google infobox (https://g.co/kgs/zHnmxr). There are entire websites and phone applications dedicated to the topic. natemup (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a !vote on whether it should be deleted or not, but it probably has it's own google infobox because it has a Wikipedia article, so it's kind of circular to say we should keep it for that reason. Jahaza (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I'm finding a lot of references to it in informal instructional guides, so it's a notable subject—but we need a reliable source that defines for it to be suitable for an article. Natemup, do you mind adding some additional RSs in this AfD, I think I could firmly vote for keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some sources. natemup (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for adding some references, natemup. Unfortunately, it doesn't look to me like any of these sources discuss preaching chords directly and in depth. (In other words, they don't contain WP:SIGCOV and/or original research is needed to understand their relevance to preaching chords.) I only had access to the Google Books previews for the book sources, so I may have missed an explicit discussion of preaching chords: providing a brief quote and page number from the sources that discusses preaching chords would be helpful so others can evaluate they extent of coverage in the sources you added. A more meta comment: the guideline we use to determine if a topic is suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG. A topic that is "referenced in many books, articles, and videos" should be covered on Wikipedia, but if it doesn't meet WP:GNG it should be covered in a more general article instead, e.g. in Black sermonic tradition or Gospel music or similar. Suriname0 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alternatively the content and definition and sourcing could be merged to Call and response (music) It's basically a term for a subset of Call and Response music, and so much of the sourcing for Call and Response could be considered as available sourcing for this article. The definition and comment and sourcing for this article should not be lost. I 'spose merging all of that to the Call and response (music) is a possibility. If that is decided I'd be happy to do the merge if pinged. But as a minimum, the content and definition and sourcing absolutely should be preserved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:North8000, it's clear that everyone in this discussion favors keeping this content. What's not clear to me from your vote is whether you favor keeping this content as a stand-alone article or merging it elsewhere. In particular, do you think this topic meets WP:GNG? Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My first choice is an outright keep and I consider a careful & preserving merge to be an OK and close second choice. I didn't comment on GNG separately. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments". Since you favor a keep over a merge, would you mind speaking directly to whether the topic meets WP:GNG? Or, can you explain why meeting WP:GNG is not relevant in this case? Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After additional consideration, my first choice would be a careful merge and my second choice would be keep. I'd be happy to help on a merge if pinged. North8000 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't find any usable sources while searching the exact phrase "preaching/preacher chords", but I got better results running more generic searches; I get the sense that "preaching chords" is a popular term that hasn't been picked up by academics, who instead just call it "instrumentation" or "musical accompaniment". The best source I found was Brooks, "The Sound of Celebration" (JSTOR 10.5323/48581552), which covers the subject in considerable depth (see especially pages 26 and 35–39). Unfortunately, that's the only source I found that I believe meets SIGCOV. While there's a lot of discussion of the vocal aspects of "whooping"-style sermons, the instrumentation generally only gets mentioned in passing. The second-best source I found was Williams, "Sermon and Song", page 91, which describes the co-operation between preacher and organist but still keeps the organist firmly in the background. Other sources simply mention that preachers are often accompanied by a Hammond organ and say little more about it.
    I think the best outcome here would be a redirect to Black sermonic tradition. Even if the concept of "preaching chords" is notable, it would make more sense to discuss it in the context of whooping sermons, about which a lot more could (and should) be written. I'm suggesting a redirect rather than a merge because I don't think the sources currently in the article are really any good for verification, which means that most of the content is effectively unsourced. The E. Dewey Smith quote could maybe be merged, but that's about it. I don't agree with North8000's suggestion to merge into Call and response (music), firstly because that article has a very wide scope and I don't see how this content would fit into it, and secondly because I don't believe it's true to say that preaching chords are a subset of call and response music – as I understand it, it is the preacher and the congregation who engage in call and response, not the instrumentalist. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, some solid Keeps and a Redirect/Merge suggestion to two different articles so we are not close to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Black sermonic tradition: Granted the refs aren't that good (and ref 1 is a deadlink) but subject matter seems notable as per WP:GNG. We need to give editors time to find good sources. CVDX (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preaching_chords&oldid=1177884076"