Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford Harmonics
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. — Scientizzle 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanford Harmonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. The only "references" are to the groups website itself and to BOCA's (which was itself deleted for being non-notable) webiste. The external links to RARB, essentially the IMdB of a cappella. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself. I suggest Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is RARB a reliable source? Corpx 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It has an editorial staff which selects the (limited) group of reviewers, so I don't think IMDB is a proper comparison. It fits some of the criteria of a reliable source; however, simply being reviewed on RARB is not an indicator of notability, as (if I understand their policies correctly) they generally accept all or most submitted albums for review. JavaTenor 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just trying to put it in context. These are essentially amateur reviewers, even if these aren't reviews that anyone can edit. Savidan 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some links below which show that the albums were also recognized by RARB, not just reviewed. Its in the article as well now. Jairuscobb 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just trying to put it in context. These are essentially amateur reviewers, even if these aren't reviews that anyone can edit. Savidan 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It has an editorial staff which selects the (limited) group of reviewers, so I don't think IMDB is a proper comparison. It fits some of the criteria of a reliable source; however, simply being reviewed on RARB is not an indicator of notability, as (if I understand their policies correctly) they generally accept all or most submitted albums for review. JavaTenor 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Mukadderat 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Golfcam 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Savidan. Edison 04:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per these sources which note that the Harmonics albums were not simply reviewed by RARB, but have repeatedly been ranked among the "Picks of the Year".
- [1]
- [2]
- [3]
- The albums in each case are listed under the group name of "Harmonics"
- To be fair, I do go to Stanford and know some members of the group so I am not totally unbiased. :But I think these sources are relevant regardless. Jairuscobb 07:34, 12 August 2007 (Jairuscobb 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
- See above for why RARB alone is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Once notability was established, it could perhaps be linked as a review. Savidan 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Savidan, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I interpreted, the above bit with Javatenor to mean that an RARB review does not constitute notability, because any album can be reviewed. However, being selected as a "cream of the crop" essentially seems to be a completely different matter in terms of notability. I can see you arguing that the group's repeated inclusion on "Picks of the Year" simply isn't good enough (which is I think what this AfD debate is supposed to decide) but certainly it makes the group more notable than simply having a review, which is what was talked about above.
- See above for why RARB alone is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Once notability was established, it could perhaps be linked as a review. Savidan 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an issue with RARB as a source, how is a source's worth determined?
- Yes. Look for books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Published sources which are edited and fact checked. Not blogs or other web 2.0 content. Savidan 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, RARB is in fact both edited and fact-checked. JavaTenor 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I don't really see how to differentiate between say Pitchfork Reviews and RARB, besides popularity and genre. Jairuscobb 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, RARB is in fact both edited and fact-checked. JavaTenor 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Look for books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Published sources which are edited and fact checked. Not blogs or other web 2.0 content. Savidan 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an issue with RARB as a source, how is a source's worth determined?
- Delete notability not established by multiple, independent, third party sources. Nuttah68 14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.