Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deke Sharon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — CharlotteWebb 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deke Sharon

Non-notable a cappella singer (WP:MUSIC). Makes claims to be a "pioneer", etc., but like the rest of the article, there are no sources. Was kept earlier in a multi-article nom with a lot of anons and new accounts. Savidan 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

24 media sources added. User:Totalvocal 20:39, 16 February 2007
66.92.17.10 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of these seem to constitute trivial mentions or college newspapers. Can you be more specific about what part of this mess you think meets a notability guideline? Savidan 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue of notability has been discussed in the previous call for deletion (are those statements now invalid?), with these newly added sources (sorry for the mess - learning) to support (as you requested above). "US singer" isn't as appropriate as community leader when considering notabilityTotalvocal 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine, community leader...can you show me what non-trivial source you think backs up the claim that he is a notable community leader. Most of these articles are about college a cappella groups winning an award and there is a quote from him in the article; that doesn't really establish notability. Savidan 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Part of his notability is for college a cappella institutions he founded. In this case, college newspapers are non-trivial sources and articles in them can contribute to notability.
Quotes added from additional non-trivial media sources (major newspapers), but links to those articles cannot be found online (that I was able to find) Totalvocal 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Being quoted in a major newspaper is not enough for a non-trivial reference. Savidan 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The following quotes are ABOUT him: The Boston Globe has called him "a one man a cappella revolution," the Oakland Tribune called him "the maven of the a cappella movement," the Ottowa Citizen referred to him as "The a cappella expert," and the Ithaca Times called him "a musical genius... an a cappella giant."
In addition, being quoted once in a paper is indeed no big deal. But being quoted frequently (likely more frequently than any other person on the topic of contemporary a cappella) is an indication as being a "non-trivial" person from the media's perspective, especially when those sources include the New York Times, CNN, etc. Totalvocal 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sharon is perhaps the most influential figure in United States a cappella--and certainly collegiate a cappella--in the last two decades. His radical modernizing of the traditional glee sound while at Tufts completely altered the college landscape. His founding of CASA, his creation of BOCA, his involvement with The House Jacks... If his article is delted, well, one can't really make an argument to include any single modern a cappella figure. We simply need to source the article more completely. --Patchyreynolds 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
With no disrespect to Savidian, this seems to be a one man crusade to remove as much collegiate and professional a cappella as possible. Consider the previous discussion on The HouseJacks that Savidian referenced himself - the end result referenced his failed crusade. Despite this, I don't wish to make my argument based upon a vendetta, but rather upon merits. With a cappella becoming increasingly mainstream and more popular, it seems a shame to remove any article that is clearly justified (Deke Sharon does a cappella for a living! It's not a mere hobby of his.) A quick google search of Deke's name references over 77,000 hits. Given the unique nature of his name, I think it's fair to assume a large portion of those have something to do with him. I'll gladly grant you that the article isn't as sourced as well as it should be, but I don't believe that leads to a total deletion. Given the lack of contemporary a cappella information on wikipedia, I believe that removal of Deke's article, as well as similar ones, would weaken an already small section on contemporary a cappella. LCMike 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sharon clearly passes the bar for Notability under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. One guidline for notability suggests an artist has "become the most prominent representative of a notable style", which is pretty clear by the article's media references, such as the Boston Globe, the Oakland Tribune, and CNN. An argument can also be made that he meets the requirement of having "established a tradition or school in a particular genre" - the tradition of contemporary acappella music has been created and forged through his projects, such as the founding of the Contemporary Acappella Society, the BOCA and ICCA programs - his actions have established a unique tradition in this particular genre.Iangoldstein 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What a mess. All three of the above new users have only contributed to this afd, related afds, and the articles associated with them. Savidan 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I fail to see why Savidan is so nasty with his responses. You, sir, can make clear and cogent points that are fair and noteworthy without being nasty and curt. Regardless of my experience in Wikipedia, at least I am well versed in common courteousy. LCMike 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, as a longtime member of the WP community, I'm glad to see that folks who are clearly knowledgeable about and interested in a more specialized genre of music have taken an interest in WP's communal production of knowledge. Isn't the point that as the scope and depth of the project increases more people will aid in the development of different categories? After all, Nupedia became Wikipedia precisely to foster contributions by those outside the scope of the original project. I would think, Savidan, that our aim would be to laud new contributers and hope that their contributions increase in number and breadth of interest in the future, not marginalize them for being new to the site. Just my thoughts... --Patchyreynolds 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seens pretty legit to me - (Unsigned 132.236.75.78 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There's this: [1], which isn't great, but I'm going to go with WP:IAR on this one. There are a ton of mentions of him out there, and they seem to be mostly original in nature (as opposed to the usual regurgitations of the same press release over and over again that you usually get in these situations). So, vote to keep on ground of quantity rather than quality. - Richfife 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as Wikipedia notable and per AfD#1. I found and posted in the article cites to numerous published works that should ensure that there is sufficient source material to include a verifiable, encyclopedic article about this topic. Claims about "pioneer", etc. may be removed if not verified per WP:BLP. AfD#1 is valid as properly closed by an administrator with a Keep consensus, which took into account the anons and new accounts. AfD is not the proper venue to consider disputed, prior AfD decisions. This is the second AfD for this article and should be labeled as such. Everyone, please remember to be courteous to each other. -- Jreferee 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This singer is clearly notable from the references given in the article. I see no reason why this should have gone back to AfD. A review would have been more correct. --Charlene 23:41, 21 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.