Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Bass Sciences

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Bass Sciences[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Likely hoax (pre April 1), no reliable independent sources WWGB (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even find one reference from a reliable & independent source; fails WP:NORG. If this organisation exists, it's certainly not notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. The Institute for Bass Sciences was founded in 1996 and its research papers have been published in various journals, e.g. the International Choral Bulletin. The management of the Great Bass Choir, the instigation of writing and composing the Ode to Basses (all clearly referenced in the article!), the provenance of its members (mostly basses from world-class choirs as the APZ Tone Tomšič etc.) clearly show that the Institute is not "a hoax". Deletion would be frivolous and based on ignorance, none of which conform to Wikipedia deletion policy. I advise those promoting deletion to consult with experts in choral singing before taking any action.

Additionally, I am appaled by the attitude of certain editors attacking new contrubutors, labeling their legitimate contributions as "likely April 1st hoaxes" and deleting their sincere and corteous explanations by rude remarks such as "begone!"B15563T5 (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ORGCRIT, please provide significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. As an occasional contributor to IBS's research I resent the notion of an "April 1st hoax". (disclaimer - I am a personal friend of the creator of this article and can vouch for his expertise) KAP Jasa — Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— KAP Jasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it needs independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it's a hoax or not (and it sure does smell like one), it's completely unverified, and unverifiable, as search returns only self-published 'sources'. Fails notability with flying colours. Could've been speedied, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly this should be speedy deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:NORG. No RS to support notability. Vikram Vincent 13:23, 3 April 2021 (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.