Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Opportunes
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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Harvard Opportunes
Not notable. Verified only by their own website. Using Google and Lexis-Nexis I can find no non-trivial, non-local, reliable sources featuring them. The CARA awards are not valid claims of notability unless the awards themselves received reliable third-party coverage, and an appropriate Google search shows nothing promising (and 26 unique hits). Regardless of the notability of the CARA awards, if winning them didn't lead to non-trivial coverage of the Opportunes by multiple third-party sources, then there's no way to write a verifiable encyclopedia article in this case. Notability-tagged since July. De-prod comment was "we go through the acapella thing all the time. they hardly ever are deleted at afds." Even if it's true that "they are hardly ever deleted," that has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept. Anyway, it doesn't appear to be true that "they are hardly ever deleted": see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bear Necessities of Brown University and the current Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meddiebempsters and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MIT/Wellesley_Toons_2nd_nomination. Pan Dan 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Meh. OK, lets do it again. Keep. The Opportunes are notable as being the Harvard-Radcliffe Opportunes, and the oldest co-ed glee club - beg pardon, a capella group - in the Northeast. They exist, as the Today Show can attest [1]. Also see [2]. A major award - it's CASA not CARA, and at least two reliable source articles. Whatever. Hornplease 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Noting further: an annual international concert tour. That means WP:MUSIC satisfied on three counts. Hornplease 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- (1) "oldest a capella group in the Northeast"? Not so. See The Yale Whiffenpoofs. The Opportunes have been around only since 1980, according to the Wikipedia article. (2) Coverage by the campus paper is local and should be considered trivial as an indicator of notability. Local businesses are covered in local papers all the time. The Crimson articles you cite, anyway, don't have enough material that we can use to build an article (and don't verify the material that's in the article right now). (3) You don't address the reliable sources concern: the group's website is the only place to go to verify the material in the article. (4) Appearing on The Today Show doesn't automatically confer notability. It's an indication that there might be reliable non-trivial coverage of this group that we could use to write an encyclopedia article. But there doesn't seem to be any. I looked, and you looked, and neither of us came up with anything that we can use to verify the material in the article, or to re-write an encyclopedia article anew. Pan Dan 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oldest coed acapella group. The Harvard Crimson is not considered as trivial as most local newspapers. It certainly is accepted as a reliable source; if you want new policy on that, take it to the pump. Thus the Crimson, if nowhere else - and there are others, including a Globe article from 1999 - that indicate that the thing exists, and give us enough information that we can check whether or not a reasonable amount of information is accurate. The Rashida Jones thing is confirmed in an issue of the new magazine 02138 that I saw the other day. The point being that if you claim that the Crimson is not RS, then you have to remove references in a ton of other articles. If you do, then you cannot claim that multiple mentions in the media are not relevant. Above all, the Crimson definitely reports an international tour; that meets wp:music all by itself.
- You see my point? I have no objection to changing wp:music to remove a ton of little groups; but the problem is that wp:music, as it stands, will almost always allow a capella groups in major univs through the cracks. Hornplease 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- (1) Much of your comment takes great care to rebut my claim that The Crimson is not a reliable source. Problem is, I never made such a claim. Please read my above comment again. What I said about The Crimson is that it should be considered trivial as an indicator of notability because it's local, not that it's trivial because it's unreliable, nor that it is unreliable. (The same is true of the 02138 magazine you mention, which bills itself as "geared toward alumni of Harvard University.") I also said that The Crimson articles don't verify the information that's in the article right now, nor could they be used to write a Wikipedia article anew -- this is because of their trivial content, not because of their reliability. (2) Ah yes, the "international tour". I meant to respond to that yesterday but forgot. In my view, the primary notability criterion is -- well -- primary. It's a derivative of the core policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and it's in every one of our notability guidelines including WP:MUSIC. The ancillary provisions of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. exist because they are indications that the primary notability criterion is likely to be satisfied. For example, the "international tour" provision is at WP:MUSIC because a band that has gone on an international tour is more likely to garner press coverage. However, a college group travelling abroad to perform is at a fundamentally lower media-grade than a band with a signed label. In every case, ultimately, the primary notability criterion must be checked, and in this case, it's failed. Pan Dan 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- If this page is going to be deleted, then the page for the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones should be deleted as well. That article does not cite sources and lists the Veritones as "one of Harvard's oldest" a cappella groups. Could not the information about Rashida Jones and various other members of the opportunes be verified if the Opportunes' CDs are cited?--140.247.240.127 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is notability. We need sources that are independent of the Opportunes. By the way, the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones. Pan Dan 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re: "the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones article has been nominated for deletion" -- by you, I see! Pan Dan 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is notability. We need sources that are independent of the Opportunes. By the way, the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones. Pan Dan 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- If this page is going to be deleted, then the page for the Harvard-Radcliffe Veritones should be deleted as well. That article does not cite sources and lists the Veritones as "one of Harvard's oldest" a cappella groups. Could not the information about Rashida Jones and various other members of the opportunes be verified if the Opportunes' CDs are cited?--140.247.240.127 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- (1) Much of your comment takes great care to rebut my claim that The Crimson is not a reliable source. Problem is, I never made such a claim. Please read my above comment again. What I said about The Crimson is that it should be considered trivial as an indicator of notability because it's local, not that it's trivial because it's unreliable, nor that it is unreliable. (The same is true of the 02138 magazine you mention, which bills itself as "geared toward alumni of Harvard University.") I also said that The Crimson articles don't verify the information that's in the article right now, nor could they be used to write a Wikipedia article anew -- this is because of their trivial content, not because of their reliability. (2) Ah yes, the "international tour". I meant to respond to that yesterday but forgot. In my view, the primary notability criterion is -- well -- primary. It's a derivative of the core policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and it's in every one of our notability guidelines including WP:MUSIC. The ancillary provisions of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. exist because they are indications that the primary notability criterion is likely to be satisfied. For example, the "international tour" provision is at WP:MUSIC because a band that has gone on an international tour is more likely to garner press coverage. However, a college group travelling abroad to perform is at a fundamentally lower media-grade than a band with a signed label. In every case, ultimately, the primary notability criterion must be checked, and in this case, it's failed. Pan Dan 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- 'Delete No use of independent sources to establish notability. In the alternative; smerge to Harvard University, which is the usual outcome for student groups of all types with no notability independent of the college. GRBerry 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I must disagree if you think that the Crimson is not independent in this sense. Hornplease 10:33, 17 December 2006 (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.
