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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Harmonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Recreation of a previously-deleted article. Acapella group of little notability beyond Stanford University. Clear issues of advertising, self-promotion, conflict-of-interest, and general vanity. Madcoverboy (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4. Reposts of previously XfD items don't need to be taken back to AfD. McWomble (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that the previous decision should bind this discussion. The group has improved since the last deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Irrelevant. A copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version is eligible for speedy deletion. McWomble (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though only weakly. The fact that the organization has existed for more than ten years on a highly influential university campus, and released eight albums in that time, means that the organization has had a sufficient impact on the world to demonstrate encyclopedia-worthy notability, in my view. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not inherited; the fact they are affiliated with either Stanford University or Palo Alto College is immaterial to establishing their notability as a musical group. Moreover, anyone can cut, produce, and release an album which is why reliable third-party publications are necessary to establish notability. There is no assertion of notability or importance nor is there likely to be forthcoming as is common to the vast majority of college and university acapella groups. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, releasing 8 albums seems to pass WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No it doesn't. Per WP:MUSICBIO, they must have released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels or had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. McWomble (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch your WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2008 (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.