Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society for the Preservation and Advancement of the Harmonica

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 RESULT:Keep (non-admin closure). Notability proved - thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for the Preservation and Advancement of the Harmonica[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously it needs work but a Google Books search turns up enough to convince me it's notable. Mcewan (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources contributing to notability are

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Playing The Harmonica, 2nd Edition mentions the SPAH in several places
Harmonicas, Harps and Heavy Breathers mentions the SPAH in 3 places
Harmonica For Dummies has a short pargraph
Billboard magazine paragraph on SPAH
Another Billboard magazine paragraph on SPAH
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on SPAH conference
Jounral of the Michigan Senate in 1975, the Senate gave the SPAH "the highest accolade of tribute" on the occasion of its 12th anniversary

The first six sources (the seventh was just for fun) are independent secondary sources from reputable publishers. Most are not long, but overall there seems to be enough depth here to achieve notability and to recommend a marginal keep. Mark viking (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work, nomination withdrawn' Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]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.