Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of the Blue (Oxford University) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of the Blue (Oxford University)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Current contestants on the show Britain's Got Talent. There are 35 refs in the article but not a single one is reliable demonstrates notability (I checked them all), they are either local newspaper articles, dead links, webzines, or reviews from the fringe. Tagged as COI, written like an advert and more refs required. Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Local newspapers are quite likely to be reliable sources. In particular, the Oxford Mail certainly is.  One of the sources is the Daily Telegraph, a serious national newspaper.  The BBC is a reliable source.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Helps if you follow the cites to their destination. Oxford Mail goes somewhere weird, Telegraph is dead and BBC is dead. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This Oxford Mail link looks OK to me; BBC link is OK; agree that Telegraph is dead, but is now here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is also OK. And I repeat, local newspapers are in general reliable.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Checked them all. They're trivial - one sentence mentions that mention they played somewhere. None of those establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly reasonable assessment, but it is different to what you said before ("not a single one is reliable"). You might like to consider revising the nomination, striking through anything you want to change.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair comment, have amended the nomination. Szzuk (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a keep or delete opinion? The Keeps below haven't added anything much to the discussion. Szzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment in a second nomination, it helps to say what, if anything, has changed since the first closed as "keep". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Didn't pass GNG first time around. The lack of reliable sources was ignored. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the nomination seems to be mainly about article issues that could be fixed. What is it that suggests deletion as opposed to cleanup?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked the sources closely and don't believe they allow the article to pass GNG. I'm inviting editors to check the sources more closely, the tags are there and invite closer attention. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're arguing for deletion on the grounds of non-notability then as well as the general notability guidelines you also want to consider whether the subject passes Notability (music). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Teamvillage in the previous nomination: Over here in the UK, they are by far the most notable college a cappella group in the country, which the competition results and reviews go a long way to proving. They may not be as notable in the US, but it's not their fault they are not based there! In any case they satisfy the criteria so should remain.   Th e S te ve   07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm from the UK. In that case suggest tongue in cheek - we delete the article until they've moved to the US. Szzuk (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As a regular Wikipedia consumer, the page looks ok to me...so can't honestly see what all the fuss is about, surely deletion is a little extreme?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.196.57 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Warden (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently you didn't read any of the references. Which ones demonstrate notability? Szzuk (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well i was very interested to read about out of the blue and I am sure others will as will so leave well slone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.109.208 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have a problem with the fact that this article has existed for nearly five years and now its up for deletion. Why now after all those years? To be fair the article has some breath for an article which is up for deletion. Needs quite a bit of work though. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. Seems highly drastic to delete. As an acapella group they are notable. Maybe more citations can be added and article improved, but keep as opposed to delete. Feudonym (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This group appeared on Britains Got Talent the other night and were voted out, and they wont become famous again.Popeye4buzz (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the article? The group was well established before the current incarnation appeared on BGT. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim Keep On the original sources, I agree it was a delete. But a quick hunt through more recent news sources off the back of Britain's Got Talent reveals at least three more which give the group more than a passing mention. It's still pretty slim, in my view. Nevertheless, there are multiple reliable (at least on this sort of topic, I wouldn't trust them on international politics!) sources which provide sufficiently significant coverage. The SunThe Daily MailThe Telegraph GDallimore (Talk) 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A very definite keep. The group has been going for 11 years and has won awards so is hardly a flash in the pan. Who is to say that they will not stay in the public eye merely because they got voted off BGT in the semi-final? --Shylocksboy (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (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.