Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences


 * 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. Sources are provided, and not credibly challenged in any detailed manner. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The institution is accredited so it passes a minimal bar of legitimacy. It doesn't appear to award degrees; the only credential documented by the U.S. Department of Education is a "Recording Arts Technology/Technician" certificate. Nevertheless, it would be highly unusual to delete an article about an accredited institution even if the current article is a stub that is poorly referenced. If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: "If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects." You might want to read through Notability#Request_for_Comment_on_the_Subject-specific_notability_guidelines_(SNG). To sum it up, "Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at WP:AFD)." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't referenced any such guidance, merely noted the prevailing practices and consensus usually reached in similar discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I was merely pointing out that giving Wikiproject authority when it comes to notability standards isn't the prevailing practice or consensus anymore. Incase you or anyone else wasn't aware of the RfC. Since it's fairly new and I know not everyone has to time keep with every little policy change. That said, you saying "If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects" sounds a lot like you were giving guidance that if we are going to use different standards that we should discuss it "explicitly" with the involvement of the "relevant projects." Otherwise, I don't see why you would bring it up. Usually don't say people should do something if it's not something they are giving "guidance" about. Like, I'm not going to say someone should start an RfC about something unless that's literally what I think they should do. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason I mentioned projects is that notifying them is often a quick, handy way of notifying many editors who have an interest in a particular area. If you think that other methods are better then of course you're free to pursue them, too (although I imagine that having a discussion focused on a specific topic for which there is an applicable project but not notifying that project may be perceived as uncollegial). ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, makes sense. The more opinions about something the better. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Researching into the school itself, I believe that it should be kept. The school is Accredited and although article is lackluster as best when it comes to sources, there is a large amount of sources and information that could be added to the article. I can update the article with more information and independent and in-depth sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toumablack (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Looking over this it's a private school and lacks the sources to pass WP:NORG. So, I'm not sure what else the article should kept based on. If someone wants to provide WP:THREE good, independent in-depth sources I'd be more then happy to change my vote keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Although it is accredited, and it has some trivial mentions in news coverage, I can't find any reliable sources covering the university. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The 2014 article notes, "CRAS graduates have won Grammy and Emmy Awards, and its lobby walls have gold and platinum albums including Adele and Drake featuring audio work by its graduates."   The 2001 article notes, "Once located in New York City, the school has been housed in a nondescript brick building on the northeast corner of Broadway and Price roads since the early 1980s. It's one of the few fully accredited recording schools in the country, but has remained something of a secret in the Valley."   The abstract notes, "Daley profiles the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences in Tempe, Arizona. He gives its history. It's curriculum and audio equipment are discussed. Photos and contact information are included." The article notes: "Established in 1980, the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences moved to a state-of-the-art, 14,500-square-foot high-tech campus in Tempe, Ariz., in 1995."   The article notes, "About 400 miles separate Gilbert from Hollywood, California, but the Conservatory of Recording Arts & Sciences offers students a straight shot. Alumni have gone on to work with some of the music industry’s biggest names, such as Adele and Beyoncé, and on films, such as “The Revenant” and “The Wolf of Wall Street.”" The article notes that the school has campuses in Gilbert and Tempe and that it "offers in-house, hands-on training for careers in music, video games, television, film, live sports broadcasts and theater". The school was founded in 1980 in New York City. Roughly 10 years later, it moved to Arizona. It constructed its Gilbert location in 2000. Most of his students did not previously live in Arizona. Most students move to outside the state following graduation.   The article notes, "The Conservatory (henceforth known as CRAS) is one of the schools that has emerged from the pack, receiving accolades from its students, graduates and from the pro audio community at large. Without a doubt, CRAS has come a long way in the past decade. While enrollment at CRAS is relatively small (currently no more than 400 students a year) in comparison to other recording schools..." </li> <li> The article notes, "For more than two decades, the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences has provided high-quality audio training to those who believe that they will never be satisfied with any other career path. ... At any given time, the CRAS student body averages approximately 600 — 480 on campus and 100 on internships, a required component of the curriculum." </li> <li> The article notes, "The Conservatory of Recording Arts & Sciences (CRAS), one of the nation’s best-known audio schools, offers internships to its students that turn the typical process on its head. Instead of selecting an intern position from a ready list of placements, students—who must complete 280 internship hours in order to graduate—each submit a top-10 wish list and CRAS staff work to secure their acceptance." </li> <li> The article notes, "Founded in 1980 in New York City, the school moved to Phoenix in '87, then to Tempe in '95." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences passes Notability (organizations and companies), which says, "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." The school passes Notability (organizations and companies) by receiving significant coverage in The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in Arizona. The Arizona Republic called the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences "one of the few fully accredited recording schools in the country". Music Connection said, "CRAS graduates have won Grammy and Emmy Awards, and its lobby walls have gold and platinum albums including Adele and Drake featuring audio work by its graduates."  Community Impact Newspaper said, "Alumni have gone on to work with some of the music industry's biggest names, such as Adele and Beyoncé, and on films, such as The Revenant and The Wolf of Wall Street."  Future plc's Pro Sound News called it "one of the nation's best-known audio schools".  Cunard (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have never heard of this school, but if multiple independent reliable sources are writing about it, and it sounds like it is significant non-trivial coverage, then clearly that is what matters. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — I stand with the good ol' captain @ on this one, I don’t believe there is significant coverage on the university. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it should be kept, there are multiple reliable sources, and it has a multitude of non trivial coverage.Toumablack (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What's non-trivial about anything cited by Cunnard in relation to this? Just to take one example, "Founded in 1980 in New York City, the school moved to Phoenix in '87, then to Tempe in '95" sounds pretty trivial to me. Maybe your referring to "Daley profiles the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences in Tempe, Arizona. He gives its history. It's curriculum and audio equipment are discussed. Photos and contact information are included"? I'd love to see you or anyone else here try and argue that the places contact information isn't trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources say far more than that. They appear to discuss the history, curriculum, internship process, etc for this school.  They provide more than contact information.  Are you here to have a civil discussion about whether there is sufficient coverage to build an article? Hyperion35 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. Are you insinuating that asking questions or disagreeing with you isn't having a "civil discussion"? Because that's how your comment comes off. Anyway, more on topic we (or at least I) don't have access to anything in the article that I was talking about where Cunard said it gives their contact information because it's behind a paywall. So, we (or at least I) wouldn't really have a way to determine if it contained "sufficient coverage to build an article" beyond what Cunard has said about it would we? Therefore, all I (and I assume everyone else has to go on) is what Cunard has told us and in my opinion (that I never claimed was represented anyone else) there isn't. Also, I would assume, because Cunard has contributed to AfDs quit a lot, that if there was more sufficient coverage in the article besides their contact information that Cunard would have said so. Since I'm pretty sure they (Cunard) know what constitutes "sufficient coverage" (contact information clearly not being up to that standard) and what doesn't. Either that, or they (Cunard) are just knowingly listing a bunch of arbitrary information in AfDs that is completely irrelevant to the process (and what your saying we should all be doing) when better information "to build an article" off of exists. Which it seems like your saying Cunard is doing. If I was Cunard I'd swiftly tell you otherwise and ask why your questioning my ability to do this properly. Also, we can't really "build an article" with information we don't have access to can we? Or maybe I just can't, but you can, and you rather just call out other people then do it yourself. Since I haven't seen you "building the article" since this AfD was opened or Cunard provided the references. When, I assume, your fully capable of doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't understand most of what you are trying to say. Rather than risk offense due to misunderstanding, I will simply re-iterate my point above that the articles that Cunard has posted appear to include more useful information than you seem to credit, it is more than just "contact information".  I did not see anything behind a paywall, but I did not click on each and every link.  Regardless, sources with paywalls are still valid.  Please try to avoid speculating on the motivations of other editors, what they think, etc.  It comes across as uncivil or worse, and contributes nothing to the conversation. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You literally made this uncivil in the first place by calling out my motivations by asking me if I was here to improve articles or not when I has 100% sticking to discussing the article and hadn't said anything personal to you or anyone else. Nice try on the gas lighting though. Your the one making this uncivil by using such tactics instead of sticking to discussing the AfD and the references. I guess you decided to go that route since you couldn't answer my question about what's not trivial about contact information. Which is cool, but I have better things to do then be attacked or have my motivations called out just because you can't answer a simple question about the quality of references someone is providing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.