Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Opportunes (2nd nomination)
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 delete, recreation possible once some non-Harvard sources show up. Although not determinative here, I agree that it is at least questionable whether the school newspaper is an independent source when covering a school band. The text is available for a merger if anyone wants to. Sandstein 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Harvard Opportunes
(Nominated recently, but closing admin agreed to a renomination, see Talk:Harvard Opportunes.) No evidence of being the subject of multiple non-trivial external sources that show notability and that we could use to write a good encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I can't find any of their albums on Amazon (my search for their most recent). While they have apparently gone on an international tour, their music has not topped any charts, their albums are very difficult to find, and there are not enough independent, reliable sources (I do not consider the school's own newspaper an independent, reliable source) to create an article (many of this one's claims are unverified). It also appears that the Opportunes are not the oldest college a capella group. Srose (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair, they don't claim to be the oldest one, just the oldest co-ed one (I made the same mistake at the first AFD). Still not notable though. Pan Dan 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, and no external sources have been found. --John24601 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rashida Jones and Anne Preven are both former members of the group that went on to fame. If the group's CDs from when these two were members are used to verify the article, will that satisfy the requirements that the article fails to meet at this time?--Amsuther 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no sources providing notability, no real claim to notability. Re the question above, IMO the answer is no. The fact that the people you mention were in the group is pretty irrelevant, they did not form the group, the group did not split when they left. They just happened to be in the group whilst at college and that makes it no more notable than the Harvard Ping Pong Society would be if someone of note had happened to join. Nuttah68 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Hornplease's arguments in the original AfD, showing that the Opportunes meet WP:MUSIC. Notability particularly established in this article; also the subject of a few reviews[1][2] (more articles here). Note that there is nothing in WP:N or WP:MUSIC that says "local" (which I would dispute here; geography is obviously trivial, the Harvard alumni community and the [collegiate] a cappella community are sizable) reliable sources are not suitable for determining notability; nor have I ever seen a Wikipedia guideline/policy that says college papers may not be considered independent in covering college-related topics. (A truly non-independent source would be the group's own newsletter or website.) If the article contains information that is not verified by the sources, that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. schi talk 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is the award described in The Crimson impressive? Note that the award moved no journalist -- including the author of that Crimson article -- to write a profile of the Opportunes that we could use to write a Wikipedia article. I think we have to distinguish claims of notability (such as winning an award) from actual notability, which is a totally practical requirement: the existence of enough sources to write a good Wikipedia article. Whenever possible clean up, don't delete, yes. But which of the Crimson articles you linked to could we use to rewrite this article? Pan Dan 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the idea is that the award (Contemporary A Cappella Society of America's award for "Best Mixed Collegiate Song") is impressive — that's what moved them to write the article. The fact that no one wrote a comprehensive profile of the Opportunes (that is readily available via Google, at least) is in no way, and has never been, a criterion for disproving notability. I think that WP:N is formulated precisely to identify "actual notability", which usually (although not always) maps quite similarly onto "claims of notability". I think that many of the Crimson articles provide plenty of information for an article; certainly not an exhaustive one, but at least enough for a stub. And who's to say that another article - like a profile - won't turn up in the (near) future? schi talk 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is the award described in The Crimson impressive? Note that the award moved no journalist -- including the author of that Crimson article -- to write a profile of the Opportunes that we could use to write a Wikipedia article. I think we have to distinguish claims of notability (such as winning an award) from actual notability, which is a totally practical requirement: the existence of enough sources to write a good Wikipedia article. Whenever possible clean up, don't delete, yes. But which of the Crimson articles you linked to could we use to rewrite this article? Pan Dan 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per national awards, tours, appearances at White House and on Today Show, and Harvard Crimson article. A college paper which has an independent editorial board and has won national awards is absolutely not excluded as a reliable and independent source. Edison 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree; I believe that despite the best attempts, the writers are doubtlessly partial towards their own choral groups, sports teams, and organizations, and I am sure that some of these biases make it past the editorial board. However, this is beside the point. None of the Crimson's articles really speak to any of this article's non-established claims (hence, claims in violation of WP:V. As Pan Dan said just above your comment, we need to source all the claims in this article, at a bare minimum... and I'm still not at all convinced that it covers a notable subject. Srose (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If the paper at Harvard is "partial towards their own," surely the papers in Boston or London are partial toward their own as well, but that does not exclude them as sources to establish notability. A newsletter published by a choral society would not be independent, but the Harvard campus paper is as independent as a paper in a town toward things in the town. Edison 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree; I believe that despite the best attempts, the writers are doubtlessly partial towards their own choral groups, sports teams, and organizations, and I am sure that some of these biases make it past the editorial board. However, this is beside the point. None of the Crimson's articles really speak to any of this article's non-established claims (hence, claims in violation of WP:V. As Pan Dan said just above your comment, we need to source all the claims in this article, at a bare minimum... and I'm still not at all convinced that it covers a notable subject. Srose (talk) 02:50, 19 January 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.
