Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MODAL Research

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MODAL Research[edit]

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

I am creating this discussion for the original nominator and the article's creator Sn0fl4k3 who didn't complete the process correctly. His/her reason was that the article was a confused merge of two different organizations and was out of date. See: [1]. The article is about a research group based at Simon Fraser University in Canada. Note that while the original nominator's rationale is primarily based on WP:BLOWITUP, there are other more valid reasons for deletion. See my comments below. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for deletion seems to be that MODAL Research is a research group started in 2010. RYME Youth research group is a separate research group that happens to have a same university and director affiliation, but no more links, and commenced in 2008. Please note that RYME youth page was merged with and renamed to MODAL Research, in 2010. This should not have happened. Rather, two separate pages should have been maintained.

Due to this error: a majority of the info and references in the now babes MODAL RESEARCH page were really only related to that of RYME youth research - Research for Youth, Music, and education. There are only two paragraphs that are currently in the MODAL page that can be attributed to Modal research group. All the other info Ivan be traced back to the or gal RYME page before the merge.

As MODAL is not specifically a music organization, rather an artistic learning research group at Sinon Fraser University, the separation of the two sets of content is essential to best serving the Wikipedia community and the validity of the info for modal.

Please note that while Mosal has many potential references and links, it would require a substantive amount of work. It is best to revert RYME youth back to its original 2010 name (or delete RYME's page, as RYME no longer exists), and to remove the remaining MODAL paragraphs until it can be created as a full and proper page with less biased and copied content from the website. AlohaBunny (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? It looks like the two remaining paragraphs about MODAL are taken almost verbatim from here, though at least one sentence is phrased as a quotation in the WP entry. Since there is really no original content left in the article, I think it qualifies for a speedy (G12, if not also G11), but I didn't want to jump the gun and make this nomination even more confusing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to stub the article to remove the copyvio. Unless the copyvio is foundational, speedy delete doesn't usually apply. There are earlier versions of the article which aren't copyvio to which it could be reverted, although they are grossly promotional and now inaccurate. It's probably better to let this AfD run. It's quite possible that it will be closed early per WP:SNOW. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The far more pressing reason is that both MODAL Research and its predecessor organization RYME comprehensively fail the General Notability Guidelines and the Notability Guidlines for Organizations as well as the Guidelines concerning sub-articles related to universities. I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this small research group (consisting of only 4 main "investigators" + 9 graduate assistants) or evidence that attests to its impact. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM research group. --Slashme (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2015 (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.