Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-Off Campus

Add links
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. MuZemike 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Off Campus

[edit]
Off-Off Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student organization of the University of Chicago. Although they have produced a bunch of people who have worked for famous things, notability is not inherited. No significant third-party coverage; ghits give resumes of former actors in Off-off, and GBooks yields a few psychology books by the same author that treat it for a couple pages as an example of creative teamwork, but nothing that seems like it wouldn't apply to any other professional/semi-professional improv group. — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see hits on google news archive to chicago and papers that appear to be on this group, many are pay to view. Article does need some citation added. -- [1] --Milowent (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you narrow it down to exclude sources from uchicago.edu and to include "improvisation" you get 14 results, most of which refer to a "50th anniversary of improv" suggesting that their main topic is Off-Off's predecessor organization, the Compass Players. [2] — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student improv groups will sometimes g-test favorably, but upon further research are largely non-notable, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Off-Off Campus seems to mentioned in at least a couple biographies of "notable" people. While I don't know if the arguement is invalidated by the "notability is not inherited" arguement or not, on at least on a practical level, it would be convienient for those readers to have a wikilink back to an Off-Off Campus page to explain to them just what exactly that is. (Or they could do a quick g-search, whatever :P) Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could easily be taken care of in-sentence in a bio article(e.g., "Actor X started acting in Off-Off Campus, a comedy improvisation group at the University of Chicago). — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply lacks the sources to meet WP:ORG. Since many notable people have a university education, and since they are likely to have belonged to a range of clubs and societies, ergo most university clubs will be able to point to many notable alumni. Consequently, I don't think that there is any inherent notability unless it can be shown that membership of that club has significantly contributed to their future notability. Rather more importantly, the content fails the policy WP:V with unsourceable statements such as "and the group continues to build on the foundation he created. In addition to Off-Off's rich tradition,". TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Also much of the notability listed is inherited which is not enough to keep the article in its current state. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and note re article improvements: I voted keep in the 1st listing of this AfD above. Apparently no one has tried to access the pay articles that seem to reference this group (the big chicago papers), but I went thru and added a number of UofC related publication cites (also, the Maroon, the primary student paper, seems to have at least one in-depth review each year of the group's shows but i did not cite all of those). In terms of notability, I have also discovered and added that this is the 2nd oldest college improv group in the country. I think the alumni who went on to individual notability is of some additional value for keeping as well, because its a common thread for each of them. --Milowent (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does need some more sourcing and while I realize notability is not inherited, it does appear that a few famous people got their start there and just for completion sake it would be nice if those people's articles could link back to this one. I'll try to add some more sources tomorrow; hopefully, it will be enough to strengthen the article. Mathieas (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have articles on Wikipedia only if the topic is notable (and, in a few cases, if a subsection becomes too large for its article and gets split off), not "for completion sake". However, I gladly welcome (and encourage) you to find sources. — DroEsperanto (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of why there are articles on Wikipedia, thanks. Also, it looks like a lot of sources have already been added to the article. If folks still think this article is not notable on its own, perhaps a merge with the Compass Players article? From what I can determine from researching the Off-off Campus it looks like there is a line that connects the Compass Players, Second City and Off-off campus. It's an idea. Mathieas (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • While those sources are excellent for verifying information, they're really not independent enough to provide notability, since they're school publications. A merge might be appropriate, though. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, how "independent" do they need to be? Its seems hard to not accord them any value, as the primary sources that would cover this organization are going to be the media sources that cover the University of Chicago. The Maroon appears to be a significant student-run paper, its not beholden to any student groups. Also, the cite I found to the Chicago Time Out is not affiliated with UofC at all. Plus, w ecan tell via google news search that there have been references to the group in the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times; we just can't tell how significant because we can't access them, but that's also some evidence of notability; we shouldn't turn a blind eye to it. Some articles appear to discuss trips the group took to perform in Scotland. I did add a new cite to a 2000 NY Times article on this Auburn graduate, that has a graf referencing his start with this group. I know its not the world's best argument to point out that wikipedia is full of articles which could never get the amount of sourcing this one already has, but its true.(see, e.g., Fresh concepts, Erasable Inc., CHiPs Improv (somewhat similar as most sources are student paper, though not as many sources overall), etc.)--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by organizations—none of which should be written by any part of the union/organization/government or university itself. These sources may come from other universities or from the university press but never from the university which the group or organization is a part of.

That would seem to exclude the Maroon from use as a notability-establishing source, no matter how "significant" it is. This doesn't totally preclude all student groups from inclusion in Wikipedia, however: a recent AFD for University of Chicago Band ended in keep because quality sources were found. I have already stated my suspicion of the quality of the Google News sources: they all seem either completely irrelevant (e.g., "Jessica found on-campus housing at Georgia Tech too expansive, so she moved off-off campus") or give bare mentions (including the source you added, which includes only four sentences about Off-Off), or, from the abstracts and titles, seem to be about the Compass Players or some other group, very likely only mentioning Off-Off in passing. And, as you mention, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument for notability, especially when all the examples cited have notability tags on them.
As for the other sources you added, their mentions are inadequate for establishing notability: four brief sentences in the Chicago Time Out in a piece with a handful of other improv groups, and one passing sentence in the NYT article. A minor mention in a local paper and a passing reference isn't significant coverage.— DroEsperanto (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks for linking to the WP:UNIGUIDE, that's useful info. It also says "Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability." So the Maroon doesn't help on notability under the guideline, I have to concede. On the google news sources, I wasn't including the Georgia Tech type hits in my thoughts.
Here are some of the ones i see:
So, I think we have a likely case here of "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" -- some of these articles, maybe most or all, don't have substantial coverage of the subject, but all have some coverage of it, which is some proof of notability, I think. I wonder if there is guidance somewhere about what to do when you know of the existence of articles that cover a subject, but no one has yet accessed them for inclusion.
Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists can be a useful argument for notability in some cases, as "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."
So, that's why I think this crosses over into notability, excluding the university related sources. Hopefully my work of gathering these cites is not in vain and someone who has access to these archives will access them.--Milowent (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Off-Off_Campus&oldid=1070615513"