Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonic Sol-fa
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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tonic Sol-fa[edit]
College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Claims to have sold 100,000 cds but there is no verifiable, third party source for this. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this is not a collegiate a cappella group. Did you read the article? Jesuschex 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did. It's in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also in Category:Professional a cappella groups, and as far as I can tell, those two are (or should be) mutually exclusive. It was put in collegiate by an editor who was removing a copyvio. I'll fix it. Jesuschex 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did. It's in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't think WP:MUSIC is a problem; they've toured, they've been independently reviewed. They have one album on a label, and some self-released ones, but A Capella is somewhat out of the mainstream, so I think we could stand to be flexible. I don't see this article making Wikipedia more indiscriminate in its selection of topics. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting this "independently reviewe" claim from? There are no sources in the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. While notability might be sufficient, I am more concerned about the complete absence of any reputable third-party sources to verify. I just feel that any group worthy of its own encyclopedia article should have at least one good source other than its own website and a nearly blank listing at AMG (which is not restricted to notable bands). If someone can provide, I am happy to change my opinion. --Satori Son 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't see an issue here. They have an amg entry, all of their cds are in stock in amazon[1], 8 hits about them on google news. Doesn't seem like a random garage band to me. - Bobet 14:57, 13 September 2006 (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.