Talk:Gateway Singers

New article - notability notes

They were of national prominence in the US in the late 1950's and early 1960's. They were cancelled last minute from The Ed Sullivan show due to being an interracial group. They are probably one of the most prominent and notable musical groups to not have an article in Wikipedia. They are redlinked in a few other articles and mentioned in others. I will be building this stub into an article. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is another more modern (religious singing) group (gatewaysingers.com) that comes up in some of the Google hits which is NOT them. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I still need to clarify for sure whether their name is the "Gateway Singers" or "The Gateway Singers". Even their web site is inconsistent on this point. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Article was prodded

I started this article because they are clearly of national and historical significance, with the thought of growing it all aspects. Due to their prominence being in the pre-nternet era, sources take a lot more work to find but I think that it is clear that they could be and would be. I have not yet done the work to find them and put them in. I did not anticipate become a single advocate for an article on this, just someone trying to get an article started on a band of obvious national and historical significance. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like some time to work on it before it's nominated for deletion again. You'd be able to add some more references to help demonstrate the notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They were nationally prominent. And for example, even got dropped last minute from the Ed Sullivan show for being a "mixed race" group. The suitable sources certainly exist, but take a lot more work to find because they were pre-internet. I just haven't put enough time into it yet. I'm not a fan or anything. I do work on folk music articles and their name kept coming up, the only name that did so that didn't already have an article. An article on them is clearly needed which is why I started it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan claim

Ed Sullivan claim needs to be sourced better., the group's website is a primary source. A reliable 3rd party source is needed here.--RadioFan (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I already know all of that, plus I can spot about 30 more shortcomings in this article. The scarcer quantity is folks / invested time to BUILD and beef it up in these areas.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Without quality references, the information has to go.--RadioFan (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. On one hand, I have seen this in several places and it seems plausible and credible and already sourced to a certain extent. But, on the other hand, it's a pretty strong claim regarding the Ed Sullivan show in the context of today's values, (though not for then) and so a strong claim should have strong sourcing. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)