Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartan Dischords (2nd nomination)

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan Dischords[edit]

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

Non-notable college a capella group. No third party sources, which are required under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Does not meet alternate guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria musicians and ensembles. Recreation of previously deleted material.GrapedApe (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've seen better collegiate a cappella group articles deleted. There's no objective reason why these articles should be any more promotional than anything else, but that's the way it tends to work out. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a List of collegiate a cappella groups which is almost all blue links. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a valid reason for keep.-GrapedApe (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only non-announcement reporting or critical response is from the school paper. Also fails WP:BAND criteria. Ultimately lacking significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) (Same as last time.) I can see many other entries in that a cappella list falling the same way. czar · · 04:36, 29 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.