Talk:contemporary gospel

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

The definition as it stands wouldn't be SOP, but I suspect it is inaccurate, so this is more of a fact-finding mission. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - as above. If real, it is sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a fairly clearly defined term as far as music genres go. For example, see this 1980 article from Billboard magazine: It wasn't too many years ago that contemporary gospel music was hard to find -- this would be meaningless if it were SOP, and is clearly referring to a distinct genre. Similarly: one of the oldest forms (sacred Harp) to the newest (contemporary gospel) (it wouldn't be worded like that if all "contemporary" gospel was "contemporary gospel"). Now as to whether this definition is accurate, I'm not sure it's how I'd word it but it isn't really wrong I think. I'll try to look for more info later. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also I'll note that sacred harp and other forms of gospel music exist in the contemporary era, but no one calls them "contemporary gospel". WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. As the nomination notes, this isn't SOP as defined (and thus is an issue for RFV, not here); as WurdSnatcher notes, that definition is likely correct.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Bad-faith nomination, no RfD grounds, and I'd vote to keep nonetheless as it's unclear whether gospel refers to religious music or Biblical texts about Jesus. @Metaknowledge, if you want to go on a "fact-finding mission", do it on your own time, and probably at RfV, not here. Purplebackpack89 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Metaknowledge, I used Google Books and found a number of sources that support the definition as worded, one of which I've added into the article. You could've easily spared us this RfD or RfV if you'd taken the couple of minutes to do that yourself. Purplebackpack89 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WurdSnatcher. bd2412 T 14:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kept: Clear consensus to keep and no votes in a week and a half. Purplebackpack89 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)