Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MayDay Group (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MayDay Group

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

Previously deleted by AfD, but some years ago. I'm unconvinced that it meets the notability criteria now either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per G11. Reads like something from a brochure, and is a stub to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branchofpine (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I'd support speedy) and salt. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep look at :

"Music education philosophy: Changing times," Music Educators Journal, 2002. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2307/3399880 Jump up ^ Mueller, Renate (2002). Richard Colwell, Carol Richardson, ed. The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. Oxford University Press. p. 589. ISBN 9780199771523. Jump up ^ see http://www.maydaygroup.org/about-us/history/ Jump up ^ "Roots and Development of the International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education (1985–2015)," Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536600617703724"

Yes, one source is primary but the Oxford University Press is anything but an unreliable and non-notable source, also this subject gets covered over several years. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 18:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has some academic coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is too promotional and too short.TH1980 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trung. I think the article might be short, but that hardly impacts notability. Acebulf (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2018 (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.