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. John254 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. There biggest claim to fame is appearing on BOCA (which itself was deleted for not being notable) and being the runner up for another award. They were kept in the first nomination as a result of two human interest pieces in local newspapers. These are insufficient because they give very little total content about the group and do not treat the group as though it were nationally well-known ("area group is magical" etc.). Such sources are acceptable if cited to establish that a group meets a WP:MUSIC criteria, but do not establish notability automatically. I suggest Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for same reasons as 4 months ago in the previous AFD. The article has, as refeerences, lengthy articles from two major newspapers, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, satisfying WP:N , WP:RS , and WP:V. The nominator has demanded a new standard, beyond "substantial coverage." The place to change the notability standards is at WP:N. In addition, there are a number of articles from local or campus papers, providing material with which to write a thorough article. The group has been nominated for national awards, and has been runner-up. Edison 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't news stories but human interest pieces. Neither of them contains a single fact (as far as I can tell) which would substantiate a WP:MUSIC criteria. Savidan 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is not a news archive, "human interest" pieces go much farther to prove that the subject is truly encyclopedically notable than a mere news story showing that the subject is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. I cannot find a provision in WP:N which excludes substantial coverage in a human interest story as showing that the subject is "notable." Edison 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I friend of mine had a few articles about him in local papers for getting a perfect score on the ACT and SAT, a "feat" accomplished by thousands of high school students every year probably. The relevant part of the distinction I am trying to draw is not that we determine whether the story is "human interest" or "news" but whether the article is covering the object in question as a subject of local interest or a subject that is already nationally known. Savidan 14:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I said I'd avoid AfDs for a while, but I had to chime in on this one. Frankly, I can't find a problem with any of the sources, and I fail to see how the article doesn't measure up to notability guidelines, nor do I understand how substantial writeups in the San Jose Mercury News and San Francisco Chronicle aren't verifiable, reliable sources. (By the way - those two papers are about as "local" as the Miami Herald or the Chicago Tribune.) Regardless of how the nominator feels about the national reach of the group in question, the fact remains that the sources pass muster and support the article's notability satisfactorily. Add to that the fact that the group meets at least one WP:MUSIC criteria, and you have a textbook example of a "keeper". The nominator may have a better argument against the Stanford Harmonics or Vocal Point (University of Delaware), but not the Mendicants. Sidatio 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easily passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Doesn't this pass #9 of WP:MUSIC (Has won or placed in a major music competition)? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither BOCA nor CARA has been determined notable enough for an article, so no. Savidan 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do, however, meet criteria 1:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

Sidatio 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think two is a pretty weak reading of multiple. Savidan 14:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. To me, multiple = more than one. Since two = more than one, two = multiple per most dictionary definitions as far as I can tell - for example, this one. Sidatio 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per RS. James Luftan ^contribs 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. wikipediatrix 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being a member of the group in question, I probably shouldn't contribute here, but I'm just curious...how long is this supposed to last before it is "decided"? Jairuscobb 14:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 5-7 days from date of nomination, depending on backlog. Sidatio 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As much as I have an affinity for the group, there needs to be a limit on how much sprawl there is on Wikipedia. I realize that people are passionate about supporting this Stanford tradition, as was my first inclination. To keep this article means that all other student groups with similar achievements should also have articles. As for "major music competition," there needs to be further definition as to what entails "major."71.137.224.197 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) — 71.137.224.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is an IP with no discussion page allowed to be in an AfD? O_o Silver seren 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Edison and Sidatio Silver seren 20:10, 12 August 2007 (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.