Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson Tigeroar


 * 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. Arguments on the keep side are not convincing. Awards aren't major enough to confer notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument. Ultimately, it fails WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 15:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clemson Tigeroar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lacks the significant coverage from multiple independent and verifiable sources needed to pass the GNG. Previously deleted at Articles_for_deletion/Tigeroar. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one is really responding I'll elaborate a bit more. The pages from the school website and newspaper are certainly not independent. The listings on a capella competition sites do not provide substantial coverage and really aren't the type of sources that show notability. The review on the "The Recorded A Cappella Review Board" is better, but it does not really seem to be the type of source that fits Wikipedia's MUSIC requirements for reviews that bestow notability on their subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That being said, Clemson Tigeroar could probably be logically redirected to the school's page (or a more specific section on groups). I'm not sure if the word "Tigerroar" should redirect there though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I wish I had read that it had previously been deleted before I went and overhauled it! I'm not going to take a position on deletion, but I thought it should look its best to meet its maker. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry for that. The issues with the article that would lead to deletion have to do more with the notability of the subject and its sourcing, not the quality, but good work on that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The extensive awards section establishes notability within its own field, as do the 2007 reviews stating that the group was already one of the best in the southeast and ready for national recognition. Believe me there are a lot less notable high school(!) (not to mention college or university) music-group articles on Wikipedia. The citations in the awards and honors section gives both multiple independent third-party coverage and notability. There are over a dozen outside independent third-party sources/citations in the article. Plus the group tours across the nation, including to the west coast. Clemson is the top university (besides USC) in South Carolina, adding to the group's importance/notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but which awards here prove notability? I know certain awards can provide for inherent notability even if outside coverage is not enough, but I don't think any college a capella award does that, and especially not anything in something like a regional quaterfinal. And which of the sources do you consider strong enough to prove GNG worthy criteria? Certainly not the numerous listings with no substantial coverage or user reviews from lower tier websites. And without trying to sound offensive, the idea that Clemson being a top university causes its a capella groups to inherit its notability is a terrible argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Noting my possible bias from the cleanup work I just did on it, a quick look through Category:Collegiate a cappella groups suggests Tigeroar has a better argument for inclusion than some existing articles there. I know this is a bit of an WP:OSE argument, so if there are standards such groups are supposed to meet for inclusion, I'd appreciate being informed of them. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the issue is that the category you mention is filled with articles that really shouldn't be on here. Being the best of the worst doesn't make up for a failure to meet notability criteria.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yaksar, I think your (possible) error is in using the the wrong criteria here. One does not use the criteria for adult professonal musicians when assessing articles on amateur collegiate groups. I believe you are expecting national coverage and reviews in major nationwide newspapers and periodicals. That's not going to occur with any collegiate group, musical or not. Notability must be assessed on its own terms for every category or genre or venue. The fact is, collegiate a cappella groups are an accepted and standard category of inclusion on Wikipedia. It seems rather random to single out this article, which appears to establish notability, among the field of 95, and indeed in the field of 325 Category:University musical groups articles on Wikipedia. You may not be aware of the upsurge in interest in, and legitimization of a cappella college (and high school) groups, particularly since, for instance, the inception of the television show Glee.
 * You use the same notability criteria for everyone, wether young, old, professional, collegiate, metal, a cappella, whatever. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Different sources may be covering for a university group, yes. But that does not mean at all that we lower our standards for them. Some school groups just won't make the cut and will be redirected. I mean hell, with your argument I could say that, since a school newspaper might be the only source that covers a high school cafeteria, we have to change our standards so that this cafeteria can have an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you're wrong about coverage of collegiate groups in general. We actually do have quite a few pages on individual college groups that are very notable and have the substantial coverage in multiple independent and verifiable sources to prove it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Awards are not major, touring lacks coverage. The only independent source that provides any depth of coverage, he Recorded A Cappella Review Board, is not a reliable source. Noting satisfying WP:BAND. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat, the criteria for professional adult bands does not apply for the 325 amateur Category:University musical groups. The article in question meets GNG because this amateur collegiate group has: twice appeared on the Best Of College A Cappella compilation CDs; received a CARA nomination; has an original song on annual CASA compilation CD; placed first in the 2004 SoJam competition; placed second in the South in the 2004 and 2010 ICCA competition semi-finals (meaning they are one of the top 12 college a cappella groups in the country); appeared on Voices Only compilation CDs in 2007 and 2009; produced 8 albums, one of which was a Pick of the Year Honorable Mention by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board. Softlavender (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those are absolutely not awards that give inherent notability without coverage. If there was substantial coverage of them winning those in multiple independent and reliable sources you'd have a different case, but you don't really have an argument to stand on here. Hell, we've got awards that actually get a fair amount of coverage (like an AVN) that still aren't considered to give inherent notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat, the criteria that apply to professional adult bands applies to all bands, including the 325 amateur Category:University musical groups. WP:BAND is for all bands, profesional or not, from America or Antartica, or whatever. What you point to are not indepth independent coverage, not notable compiliations, not major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Yaksar, the facts and logic do not bear you out. You don't seem to have any idea what comprises notability in college musical groups, and in particular not college a cappella groups. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of what you or I or any individual editor feels is enough to "[comprise] notability in college musical groups". Unless the Wikipedia community decides to set a unique standard for the notability of such a topic it is judged based on the GNG and the suitable music notability guidelines. We can't just simply make our own criteria.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already explained to you why the group meets GNG: Twice appeared on the Best Of College A Cappella compilation CDs; received a CARA nomination; has an original song on annual CASA compilation CD; placed first in the 2004 SoJam competition; placed second in the South in the 2004 and 2010 ICCA competition semi-finals (meaning they are one of the top 12 college a cappella groups in the country); appeared on Voices Only compilation CDs in 2007 and 2009; produced 8 albums, one of which was a Pick of the Year Honorable Mention by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board. That's more than 10 reasons, any two of which would meet GNG. All of those are covered and verified in reliable independent sources. I think you really have to ask yourself why you are going after this one article, which clearly demonstrates notability, out of 325 other articles on college musical groups. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's already been explained that those awards (and it should be noted that none of them actually seem to be the top achievement but runners up in some regard, not that it's too important) don't give notability unless the awarding is covered substantially in multiple independent verifiable and trusted sources. Hell, if being a finalist but not winner for a Pulitzer Prize isn't enough to give inherent notability, placing in a regional college music competition definitely isn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of the over 10 reasons you give are significant coverage so do not meet GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think college a cappella groups are so special that they get their own notability guidelines that are lower than everyone elses? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete "One of the best is the southeast" is a vague statement of praise, not  notability, and "ready for national notability" means not yet notable. Nothing more seems  to be claimed.  DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.