Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emocapella
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 keep. —Darkwind (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emocapella[edit]
- Emocapella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable college a capella band. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and WP:GNG. No record deal, no actual record releases (other than self-published). The band has supposedly been mentioned in magazines (no links ever provided to verify), but even if that's the case, the were mentions do not rise to the level of "Significant coverage" that "address[es] the subject directly in detail," as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia:No one cares about your college a capella band.
The most telling part of the article is where the band "credits itself with inventing a performance technique known as "Guerillacapella."[citation needed]." GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:GNG. Nominator would have known just by reading the provided references, which include more than "mere mentions". Diego (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - First, notability does not have to be established with record releases or record deals. There are many different criteria that can be met for notability under Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. They could be notable under criteria #1 or #7; however, there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources. I was able to find the link to MTV.com [1] but cannot find others. Just because there are not links in the article to the references does not mean that they do not exist and linking a reference is not a requirement to establish notability. However, with that in mind we are now here at AfD and would suggest that the article creator (or someone who wants the article kept) add the links or come up with additional references in order to support the claims of notability within the article. MTV is all I can find and do not believe it is strong enough to support the article.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MTV is not the only reference. You should WP:AGF and believe that the provided sources are do indeed provide enough content before !voting on the assumption that they don't; as you say, sources don't need to be online. I've read the Entertainment Weekly and it also provides in-depth coverage, so there are at least two reliable sources covering the topic. Diego (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, OK. Instead of attacking me and accusing me of not assuming good faith, please re-read my vote. I have assumed good faith, but suggested that someone (probably you as this seems near and dear to you by the tone of your writing) come up with other sources or provide links as a consensus needs to be reached and it would be easier for others to reach such if they can see the sources. Also, I am not sure that 2 sources are good enough to support the article. Keep in mind that the sources have to support the content. You cannot just state that they were in the sources and then write anything else you want in the article. Where is the source that supports this:
- Guerillacapella is a style of a cappella singing focusing on impromptu concerts, typically on a college campus, designed to attract fans that would not normally be found at traditional a cappella concerts. The performance style is named after guerrilla warfare, a method of asymmetric fighting typically categorized by small, mobile groups, which use the element of surprise to ambush their enemies. Emocapella has been most prominently credited with adapting the tactic to musical performances.
- Come up with the reference for it and maybe I could be persuaded to change my vote, but as it stands, the sources do not support the content of the article. Sorry for trying to give advice. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup; what matters for deleting the topic is the article that could be written from the available sources, not the one that is written now. Per WP:IMPERFECT we don't delete articles only because they're in bad shape. Nevertheless I've rewritten the section and everything is now sourced to the references. I don't care about the group (though it shouldn't matter if I did), but I care about content being deleted without a strong and informed reason. As you acknowledged, that the sources are not easy to found online is not a reason to delete - what matters for GNG is that the group was given press space by major publishers. Diego (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have access to these offline sources?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better yet, I've found the EW reference online. The links are in the article now. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for the links. The SPIN Magazine article is a brief mention and is only a quote from one of the band members. Not really significant coverage. The EW article is a good one and would say that it goes towards notability. The links from the school newspaper are not independent and therefore can go to supporting content in the article, but not towards establishing notability. That makes two sources, but still not enough notability to change my vote. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better yet, I've found the EW reference online. The links are in the article now. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have access to these offline sources?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup; what matters for deleting the topic is the article that could be written from the available sources, not the one that is written now. Per WP:IMPERFECT we don't delete articles only because they're in bad shape. Nevertheless I've rewritten the section and everything is now sourced to the references. I don't care about the group (though it shouldn't matter if I did), but I care about content being deleted without a strong and informed reason. As you acknowledged, that the sources are not easy to found online is not a reason to delete - what matters for GNG is that the group was given press space by major publishers. Diego (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, OK. Instead of attacking me and accusing me of not assuming good faith, please re-read my vote. I have assumed good faith, but suggested that someone (probably you as this seems near and dear to you by the tone of your writing) come up with other sources or provide links as a consensus needs to be reached and it would be easier for others to reach such if they can see the sources. Also, I am not sure that 2 sources are good enough to support the article. Keep in mind that the sources have to support the content. You cannot just state that they were in the sources and then write anything else you want in the article. Where is the source that supports this:
- MTV is not the only reference. You should WP:AGF and believe that the provided sources are do indeed provide enough content before !voting on the assumption that they don't; as you say, sources don't need to be online. I've read the Entertainment Weekly and it also provides in-depth coverage, so there are at least two reliable sources covering the topic. Diego (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having a record deal doesn't necessarily mean that it's not notable, but it is evidence that it's not notable. Especially when it's a college club that's not named The Whiffenpoofs.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic passes WP:GNG as it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It also passes WP:BAND using criteria #1: it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent". WP:BAND criteria #1 includes "articles in a school or university newspaper", such as The GW Hatchet. Indeed, a Hatchet article mentions some of the group's press appearances. Many of the group's press appearances are listed in the WP article as sources. - tucoxn\talk 02:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GW Hatchet is George Washington University's internal newsletter. I really doubt that satisfies WP:GNG any more than the reference to myspace.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. GW Today is George Washington University's internal newsletter. The GW Hatchet is a student-run newspaper. They should not be confused. Although I agree that a reference to a news article in GW Today would not meet Wikipedia standards, a reference to a news article in The GW Hatchet should be treated like one from any other college or university newspaper. - tucoxn\talk 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Just because The GW Hatchet is an "independent" newspaper does not mean that it meets the "independent" standard needed for Wikipedia references. As the group is part of the university, the press received "from" the university newspaper would not be considered independent. Again, I found the MTV.com article which is a good article and the Entertainment Weekly article is good, but still need more to meet WP:GNG. Also, references do not support the content which is also misleading. Being "featured in several major publications" is no where close to the truth of the brief mention in Spin Magazine. That paragraph stinks of notability masking. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The use for one GW Hatchet article is to note Emocapella's various non-GWU press coverage: "The group is scheduled to appear in Blender magazine in March, Spin magazine in April and Rolling Stone in the next few weeks." Blender and Spin are already mentioned in the Wikipedia article, as is Kerrang! This article requires an editor with access to Kerrang! and Rolling Stone archives in order to access those publications' archives. The other GW Hatchet article also mentions some of the group's press. - tucoxn\talk 12:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that when WP:BAND criterion #1 mentions "articles in a school or university newspaper", it's mentioning them negatively, in that such articles "in most cases" don't help establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GW Hatchet is George Washington University's internal newsletter. I really doubt that satisfies WP:GNG any more than the reference to myspace.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BAND, criterion #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." This group has been the subject of articles on MTV.com and Entertainment Weekly's web site. These are legitimately articles about this group, not just incidental mentions of them. They also got a one-paragraph item in Spin magazine. I tend to be skeptical of the notability of college a cappella groups, but it looks like this group makes it over the notability threshold. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2013 (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.