Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Gentlemen

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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Gentlemen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. TM 15:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC. (Disclosure: I am a principle editor on this article.) The article now cites multiple non-University media, including a published book, CSPAN, and NPR about the group. Additionally, WP:MUSIC#Others indicates that, for performers outside mass media traditions, frequent coverage in "publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" establishes notability. Judging from the number of times that the VGs are cited in RARB, the main web site for review of college a cappella recordings (see citations on the article for an example), they surely pass muster as an influential group in collegiate a cappella. -Tjarrett (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions on CSPAN and an 89 word news story which we cannot read on a local newspaper are simply passing mentions, not a demonstration of notability.--TM 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to repost the Richmond Times-Dispatch article -- major regional newspaper, btw, not local. I'd argue that dismissing a news article because it's behind a paywall is unreasonable. Plus, how about the Sports Illustrated reference and the notable alums? -17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The article just gives a passing mention of the group, and thus does not meet the "Significant coverage" of WP:N. As for the Richmond newspaper article: The whole article has 89 words. It is nothing more than a short blurb in a regional newspaper. Until there are multiple reliable sources which provide significant independent coverage of this group, it fails WP:N.--TM 17:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:N. Not only have multiple independent media outlets addressed the subject, but their notability is long-term, having risen to the level of performing at the White House by invitation of the president. Also important is that this entry provides supplementary material that's valuable for the Virginia Glee Club and Parachute entries. I tend towards deletionist—heck, I successfully lobbied to have my own entry deleted a few years ago, since I believe that lack notability—but this is precisely the sort of entry that Wikipedia needs more of to remain vibrant and relevant. --WaldoJ (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have multiple independent sources addressed the topic? It is mentioned in passing in a number of places. The only one close to covering the subject is the SI article and even that is only partial.--TM 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you also need to consider the BoCA CDs and the reviews on RARB. These are the relevant sources for this particular sub-culture and they establish the notability of the group through their performances, and the influence of the group through their arrangements, particularly for "Insomniac." -Tjarrett (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mild notability IJA (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2010 (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.