Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth dodecaphonics

A college singing group. Campus organizations are not sufficiently notable. Geogre 04:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. anthony (see warning) 20:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This one probably doesn't make the cut. Abstain, but it is certainly not the case that no campus organizations should make the list.  Certainly Skull and Bones, The Whiffenpoofs, the Harvard Law Review, Columbia Students for a Democratic Society, and the Oxford Union would all be worthy of articles despite being campus organizations, for example.--Samuel J. Howard 05:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur- there are campus groups that merit entries for notability- but this isn't one. Delete. -FZ 12:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same with the Dartmouth Cords, which I listed below.  RickK 05:21, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Campus organisations can definitely be notable, but I don't see this one as being of sufficient note. They've appeared on an apparently obscure compilation CD. 92 Google hits, 83 Teoma. Average Earthman 11:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can you measure sufficient notability? If The Whiffenpoofs are worthy, it seems rather arbitrary to exclude this group. And while several presidents have come from Skull and Bones, who knows where the future ones will spend their college days. I say keep this because there's no way of knowing what information might be useful in the future. Pcw 14:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, as a rough measure, 90 Google hits for "Dartmouth Dodecaphonics" and 1210 for "Yale Whiffenpoofs." We all understand the limitations of that metric, but it's an indication. And... I'm sure that more than ten people know about the tables down at Morey's and the place where Louis dwells for every person who knows, um, sorry, what is the Dodecaphonic signature song? Hey, I'll bet that more people know about "gentlemen songsters off on a spree" than know about Kipling's "gentlemen-rankers off on a spree." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You make a funny point about Kipling and the Wiffs, but the logic still escapes me. You seem to be making the argument that things are worth including because people already know about them. But I would think that people would turn to an encyclopedia for precisely the opposite reason. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd include the Whiffenpoofs because of the The Whiffenpoof Song, a notable piece of American musical history. And perhaps because they were the first college a cappella group to obtain wide renown (because of the song).--Samuel J. Howard 20:10, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. Who knows what pizza parlor, McDonald's or car repair place some future President may have worked at?  Does that mean we should list every single possible place in the world on the off chance that a President might, at some time in the future, come from there?  If a future President should happen to have been a member of this non-notable choir, then we can write an article about it then, assuming that it would even be worth more than one sentence of trivia in the President's biography article.  RickK 19:49, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * You know, I hate to make this personal, but I could care less about any of the state parks you've written about. Seriously. I doubt I'll ever visit any of them. I doubt that any president will ever set foot in most of them. In fact, I bet the governor of CA doesn't even know that most of them exist. Plus, anyone who wants to visit them can probably get more timely information from the state's own website. (They're always closing some and renovating others.) But I'm still glad you've spent the time to write about them because maybe I'll need the information. And if I don't, I'm sure that others will need it. All of the entries are well-written and someone looking for a vacation spot will be grateful to you. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not concerned with possible notability in the future. It includes things after they have become notable. This isn't the place to debate this policy. Jallan 19:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is completely arbitrary. The information is apparently accurate and doesn't overlap with any other articles. Are we afraid of making too much information available on Wikipedia?--Deepgreen 21:32, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet. This is this user's first post.  RickK 04:48, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Several people have written me and accused me of creating this sock puppet. I didn't. But I did encourage the 80+ students in the class to vote as they feel and post constructive comments. Perhaps this is one of them? Perhaps it is someone else? Sheesh. Pcw 14:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Here, here. A great point. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delayed deletion. Unencyclopedic but there may be mitigating circumstances. Andrewa 22:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 22:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Will go with Andrewa's delayed delete if there's consensus and some tracking mechanism to make sure it does get deleted. "Dartmouth Dodecaphonics" = 90 Google hits. It should get a brief mention in the Dartmouth College article, just as the MIT Logarhythms (412 Google hits) do in the MIT article. Arise, ye sons of MIT/In loyal brotherhood/The future beckons unto thee/And life is full and good... sorry, I forgot myself there. But much as I cherish the dear old alma mater I would vote delete for a whole article devoted to the Logarhythms. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, write one. You've got my permission :-) In fact, I hope you'll make it a long one filled with some of the details and perhaps even some of their nerd humor. While I never went to MIT, I like reading up on all of the hacks. It's a great schtick. Please, take my invitation, not the stern bile of those above. The Wikipedia is better when it has more information, not less. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, but... We're not trying to say that we think this information is worthless. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Before creating an article, there are three things I usually think about:
 * Would an ordinary encyclopedia include this?
 * Has the article's focus had an effect on the lives of more than 1000 people?
 * Can this article ever be expanded to more than just a stub?
 * If the first two are not true, it doesn't deserve its own article. If the last is true, well, anybody can write loads of stuff about themself. The important ones are the first two. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where people might get confused by (just an example) Abraham Lincoln the President, Abraham Lincoln from Monrovia, Abraham Lincoln from Dallas, Texas, and so on... Sure, we could have a disambiguation page, but that's infinitely annoying for something of such little worth. To be honest, we appreciate valid information, but information with such limited value is not encyclopedic and not valid for inclusion. Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Would an ordiany encyclopedia include this? Surely this isn't a legitimate test.  Our goal is not to become an ordinary encyclopedia, it's to become an extraordinary encyclopedia.  Would an ordinary encyclopedia include Tiverton or Handzame or tarabuka or AGM-88 HARM or Sonic Blast (my first five random page hits before James Burke)?  Check your encyclopedia at home, does it have any of these?  Wikipedia is not an ordinary encyclopedia.  It is obviously more inclusive than an ordinary encyclopedia. These articles are being singled out because they were created all at once by a group of people who don't know the obscure wiki syntax very well.  There are people now going around looking for any recently created Dartmouth-related articles just so they can add them to VFD.  Had these been added by Wikipedia admins over a longer period of time the majority would have never even been listed here.  Yes, I agree that Dartmouth Beer Pong has got to go.  But most of the rest?  anthony (see warning) 11:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I can tell you that the Dodecaphonics clearly pass the second test. There are several thousand students at Dartmouth at any one time. If you multiply this by the number of years that the group has been in existence, I'm sure you can claim that they've had an effect on tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands. Of course, I understand your point about Abraham Lincoln, but I don't think we have a problem with a namespace collision here. Pcw 14:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'''Long comment. (OK, rant)'''
 * Pcw, your arguments are familiar ones. Wikipedia is what it is. A large percentage of people whose articles come up on VfD make the point that disk space is cheap or that Wikipedia should accept any contribution that is factual. Currently, Wikipedia does have a requirement that, very broadly stated, articles should be "encyclopedic" and that inappropriate article are deleted.
 * Other paths have been and are being followed by other web encyclopedias. Originally, Wikipedia was Nupedia, which accepted, I believe, only peer-reviewed articles by Ph. D.'s. After a year or so, with less than a hundred articles written, it was generally conceded that approach wasn't work. People who disagree with Wikipedia's policies, particularly editorial control over article inclusion, advocate for change within Wikipedia and/or start projects such as Everything2.
 * I've been trying to figure out why the Dartmouth project bothers me, I would say this. People often try to make inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a product or a personal point of view. For example, a used book dealer had a website with short blurbs about books, and thumbnails showing their covers, and went through Wikipedia adding dozens of links, one in the article of every author whose book was for sale on his website. He could have argued that disk space was cheap, and that since the articles didn't have pictures of the book covers that he was adding information. Wikipedians felt strongly that this was "wikispam" and the links were quickly removed. We also feel very strongly about neutrality. On the other hand, we accept the fact that an encyclopedia written voluntarily by enthusiasts will have wildly uneven coverage. And we accept the fact the contents of such an encyclopedia represent a compromise between the needs of users of the encyclopedia and the needs of contributors to engage in pleasant activity, get ego-boost, or whatever it is that motivates us.
 * I think the strongest argument that could be made in favor of the Dartmouth articles is that they represent the uneven coverage resulting from the personal interest of the contributors.
 * The reason they bother me is that a) they feel like promotion to me. A flood of articles on one specific school just feels like an attempt to promote that school. Somehow, the fact that the article on MIT is so much longer than the article on Yale doesn't strike me the same way. b) The fact that they represent a systematic effort bothers me. These articles are not Wikispam, but in a way they sort of feel to me like what the bookseller did. c) The balance between the needs of the people writing these articles and the needs of readers who wish to find information about Dartmouth is out of whack.
 * The best thing you could do would be to try to direct your students into creating articles that would not have VfD problems. If you look at what this editorial process is doing, you will see that some of what is happening is that the material that has been contributed is being selectively reused and reshaped into improving the Dartmouth College article.
 * It is easy to find articles we need more than one about the Dodecaphonics. If the students had been allowed to choose topics of enthusiasm at random, we would probably not be seeing this issue. Or they could be gently directed into areas of need (we are very weak on biology, to pick one topic at random).
 * While we do encourage people to Be bold, someone using Wikipedia as a classroom exercise needs to observe how Wikipedia works and what sorts of articles are well received if hurt feelings are to be avoided. For example, someone reasonably familiar with Policies_and_guidelines would be able to explain why sentences such as "They've been through 4 albums, hundreds of concerts, and thousands of satisfied listeners in the past 20 years and we're still going" and "if you'd like more information on how to get a copy of their latest album... if you're interested in booking, contact their business manager" should not have been in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment only: I've taught technology for a long time. If I send my students off to an outside resource to make a page, they are like students abroad: they must obey the local laws.  Otherwise, I use our intranet!  Pcw has not only sent his student onto us, but he is now arguing that what's at fault is our decision making, and, at the very least, we should act as a mute web host for his class until he is done with his project.  He has gone so far as to even insult the editors here.  This doesn't encourage a great deal of charity in me, at least.  Perhaps lesser schools like Dartmouth don't have intranets, but I wouldn't think so. Geogre 21:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal. They were given copies of the so-called local laws and these local laws continue to say things like "Welcome" and "write what you know". That's what they did. Quit acting like this is some secret military computer and the students broke in to steal the launch codes for the nuclear missiles. I fail to see how extra information really hurts anyone as long as it doesn't confuse the name space. Sheesh.

And if the tone sounds insulting, you should remember that it was an old experienced hand who started tossing around phrases like "Dartmouth crap" to refer to the hard work of someone who is pretty much just a kid. Then these self-appointed editors followed up by making vague arguments that the people at Dartmouth are somehow [much virtual handwaving] not notable. So who's insulting whom?


 * Everybody at Wikipedia is self-appointed.
 * We do say "Welcome" (and we mean it), but we do not say "Any article that is factually true and well-written will be preserved in the form in which the author contributed it." We do say "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." (And we mean it).
 * For what it's worth, your views are those of a significant minority opinion within Wikipedia. Some regard Votes for Deletion as harmful. Recently, Votes for Deletion was itself listed for deletion. There is a continuing dynamic between "deletionists" and... what would you call the other faction?
 * Many believe that the way in which Votes for Deletion is presently conducted does lead to "biting newbies."
 * JImbo Wales has said that Wikipedia must be both a free encyclopedia and a free encyclopedia. The ways in which Wikipedia functions, dysfunctions, malfunctions, etc. are a means to an end. The end is producing an encyclopedia, by whatever broad or narrow definition of "encyclopedia" you wish to apply. Therefore, judging whether an article like Barberry or Warfighting or Shoe_Flinging or Bazbeaux Pizza (take a moment to look at them) is "encyclopedic" is legitimate process, even if you think we are doing it poorly.
 * Some of us think that the use of the technical term "crap," which mean "articles deserving a weeklong editorial process, discussion, and consensus-building in order to determine how they can best be used to further the mission of Wikipedia," does sometimes lead to misunderstanding. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Some regard Votes for Deletion as harmful." Yeah, some including that founder Jimbo Wales, who also thinks that we should have an article on every Simpsons episode. If every Simpsons episode is encyclopedic, then Dartmouth Dodecaphonics is. anthony (see warning) 11:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College arts. Kevyn 23:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacrimosus 00:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC).
 * Delete - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:53, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. - Bill 09:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles should only be accepted if every other object of it's type could reasonably be accepted. The group in question has had a non existant impact on anything larger than a small number of college students. An encyclopedia can not reasonably have an entry for every college singing group in the nation. -TheFed 23:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, we could. There are probably no more than, say... well, the World Almanac lists about ten pages of accredited four-year colleges with enrollments of 1000 or more. About 70 per page. That's less than a thousand. If we assume six singing groups per college, that would be six thousand articles. If you figure 3K characters for each article, that's eighteen megabytes of storage all together. I'm not an inclusionist, but we need to be careful about articulating our reasons. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The founding motive for deleting non-notable articles is not because Wikipedia does not have enough space, but because they are unverifiable and it would be all but impossible to assure factual and neutral coverage of such minutiae. - SimonP 01:09, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly verifiable through official Dartmouth sources as well as the CASA website. Do you think Dartmouth is lying about the existence of this group? anthony (see warning) 01:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This debate is now closed. Results: 11 delete, 5 keep. Deleted. DJ Clayworth 19:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)