Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosaic Whispers


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mosaic Whispers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable college a capella group, which are dime a dozen. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any of the myriad WP:MUSIC qualifications. Only sources are WP:SELFPUB or tangential mentions, not sufficient for notability standards GrapedApe (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect to Ben Folds Presents: University A Cappella!. I searched pretty hard for sources to show that this band is notable, but unfortunately all I could find were brief mentions in relation to the Ben Folds CD as well as sources that would probably be considered primary due to their relation to the college. As far as the other sources go, one is just an image of them performing, one is a link to a site to purchase the CDs (which would give it a COI), an IMDb page and a link to a site where groups can add and edit their own entries. The links on facebook to a performance/interview by a local FOX news station is good, but there would be issues of copyright since it's uploaded by the group itself and not by Fox. Even if we were to ignore this, there's not enough to show notability for the group. The sources for the Ben Folds album are more passing mentions (where they are given 1-2 sentences in relation to the other groups named), showing more notability for the CD than for the band. I'm not even sure that all of the sources are really that reliable, although I have posted them. Now the thing here is that while the Ben Folds album might be notable (and Folds himself certainly is) or maybe even some of the members might have some notability, that notability is not transferred to the group or inherited in any form or fashion. Their awards are not notable at the level they progressed to (they got to regional but did not win the overall competition), so the article cannot be kept on the basis that they've won awards. I'm suggesting a redirect since this is what they're predominantly notable for as far as the bigger scope goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article should be kept as the Mosaic Whispers are an important part of the St. Louis cultural community, the extended Washington University community, and the national a cappella community. They have performed a number of times on television and radio programs, have toured the country while representing Washington University for the last 21 years; have had their recordings on a number of national compilation albums (not just Ben Folds, but also Voices Only, CAMO, Top Shelf A Cappella, BOCA, and CARA Awards albums), and have garnered praise from national a cappella blogs/podcasts just to name a few reasons. Looking through the history of the page, you seem to have removed references to some of this relevant information, as you deemed it "promotional". No doubt there could be better references to show the notability of their 21-year history, but I think that's a matter of cleaning up the article, rather than a reason for deletion.Puponpup (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:N. You are free to add third party sources to establish notability.  Simply saying that they are out there somewhere isn't enough of a reason to keep the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" - I will take the time to ferret out better sources when I can (note that a link to video coverage of a live television broadcast, and notable news sources were already given), but I don't understand the desire to delete an article when there is clear notability indicated (even if not sourced as well as it could be). I am assuming good faith, so I am confused; why do you want to delete the article given there is no mandate in Wikipedia's rules to remove it? I have read What Wikipedia is not, I understand that it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. But as a member of the St. Louis community and the extended Washington University community, I can earnestly say that information on the Mosaic Whispers is relevant and interesting to a broad audience. Do you know the group or either of these communities well enough to debate this? If so, I would be interested to have that discussion. If not, why the push for deletion? A number of television stations, radio programs, podcasts, blogs, compilation and awards albums, and newspapers agree with me, and they were mentioned in the article (some were deleted by an editor who deemed their mention too "promotional").  If an article refers to a topic with a 20+ year history and has intimately touched the lives of hundreds of people and, via various media, been introduced to millions, is that not enough to give its article the benefit of the doubt? Unless you have information to the contrary, why not assume good faith with me? I have no agenda besides sharing information that I think would be relevant to a broad audience.  I am "here to build an encyclopedia" just like everyone else. There are other tags that exist and that are in place on the article stating that the article "needs citations for verification" and that the article's "references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" - why are those two labels not enough? Puponpup (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG aside, this group still doesn't satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC notability standards for music groups.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They do satisfy both 10 and 12 of the criteria for musicians and ensembles: They have performed music for 93.7 The Bull, both in video for the blog and audio over the radio (multiple times) (10); they have performed on a notable compilation album (10); they performed songs to a national audience on Hardball with Chris Matthews prior to the 2004 presidential and 2008 vice presidential debates that were held on Washington University's campus (12). Puponpup (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's national, regular rotation by radio and music stations. Performing on a local station does not count, no matter how often they performed. As far as the performance goes, you'd have to show that they were actually the focus of the spots and not just a random act among other acts that showed before the debates. Do you have a clip of the performance?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus the other thing to take into consideration is that it sounds like it was less that Matthews went out of his way to spotlight the group and select them himself and more that the group was just one of several local groups that were selected to perform at the debates' pre-show. The thing about this is that this means that the group would be covered more as a default than on purpose, as the show would have covered whomever was performing at the location, whether it was the Mosaic Whispers or another singing group/band/performer. Without seeing the spot it sounds more like the group performance was filmed as part of a larger broadcast spot that was actually covering the debate and show as a whole, not specifically the group. That's why it's necessary to actually see coverage of the group on this show.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't "national" an arbitrary distinction? If an artist or group is an important part of a city's cultural community, whether St. Louis, Missouri or Cordoba, Spain, or anywhere else, why must they be a mainstay of national radio or TV to be considered notable? (Unfortunately, I don't have a link to the pre-debate clips to see whether they were the focus of the segment or not.) Surely a national rotation makes them more notable, but we're looking for a threshold here. Not to mention, the Mosaic Whispers have had national recognition via appearances on multiple nationally distributed compilation albums as well as via their national tours. These compilation albums are one reason I'd be uncomfortable merging this article into the Ben Folds' album article, as it would imply the Mosaic Whispers' only nationally distributed compilation was that one. More critically, it's not clear to me why information important to St. Louis residents, as documented by St. Louis media and news sources, is not enough to consider a group notable. Puponpup (talk) 17:41, 20 August 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.