Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary A Cappella Society

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 keep. W.marsh 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary A Cappella Society

Contemporary A Cappella Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable a cappella organization (WP:MUSIC). There are no non-trivial, third party sources confirming its notablity. There is an external link to an article written by its founder which is only available online and a link to an article in American Music Teacher which constitutes a trivial reference (a quote from the founder). Was kept in a confused, multi-article first nomination which was marred by IPs and new accounts. Savidan 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Added 2 references. A third was added by another user. Vocalvt 20:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd argue that WP:MUSIC is the incorrect category in which to determine notability for this entry, as CASA is neither a musician, musical ensemble, composer, or lyricist, but rather a community organization, similar to the Barbershop Harmony Society. CASA and CASA's programs have been instrumental in the advancement and growth of the genre. The CARA awards are the primary arbiter of success in recorded a cappella (witness the number of groups, student publications, etc. proudly displaying their nominations and/or awards in this search); the CASA website publishes articles, commentaries, and blogs from notable figures in the field; the CASA songbooks are invaluable in assisting new groups in getting off the ground. Contemporary a cappella is clearly a niche genre at this time, but CASA is the central organization contributing to its growth and advancement. JavaTenor 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If WP:MUSIC is the wrong guideline, name any notability requirement that you think CACS meets. Savidan 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per NLU despite new evidence.--Holdenhurst 13:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The additional references are credible by any journalistic standard and are therefore noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.136.217.234 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
• Weak keep seems to be a notable industry org, references just barely clear the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets standards for notability by multiple independent coverage in reliable sources. Edison 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable references, significant importance in this genre. Totalvocal 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Organization serves as the principal umbrella organization for artists in notable genre of music, and thus is notable. Iangoldstein 05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable organzation which contributes strongly to the a cappella world through education, articles, seminars, awards, online music libraries, a membership of over 2,700, etc. LCMike 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a Non-Commercial organization, the Wikipedia Guide to Deletion states that Non-Commercial Organizations are "usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." CASA is legally filed as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, has over 2700 verifiable members around the world, has a team of Ambassadors around the world, holds a national convention annually, etc, etc. These are all international in scale. vocomotion 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a well-respected organization with national stature and participation, particularly among students; holds frequent and verifiable events; and its publically available IRS records on the web date back to at least 1998. I'm not affiliated with the organization but as an a cappella performer I recognize how CASA's activities regularly and significantly affect me, my peers and the stature of a cappella music. Not sure why there's even a controversy here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taytoe (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

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.