Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of the Blue (Yale University)


 * 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. Most of the arguments for keeping appear to rely on assumptions, novel interpretations or WP:IAR. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments (IAR is policy, after all), it is difficult to afford them as much weight as arguments more solidly grounded in the fact that it lacks multiple sources that are reliable and independent. There are a few arguments for merging but they are not amply persuasive at this point. If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place). Shereth 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of the Blue (Yale University)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a student group. As attractive as it may look, the topic is non-notable. All sources are from the university website or YouTube. TM 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not mistaking 'External links' for 'References'? The majority of the references come from secondary sources -- primary sources have been inserted only where no secondary source exists. (Also, I'm not sure if comparison is an argument in-and-of itself, but Wikipedia pages exist for many other Yale a cappella groups, which makes me think this one should be acceptable as well.) Rofreg 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Article has now been edited such that 5 of the 8 references are external, and from credible sources such as a regional television station and the United States embassy in Ukraine. Equartey (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is very deceiving. Where is the "significant coverage"? The only source that is reliable and secondary is the news channel. Otherwise, everything is published by a school newspaper (either Yale or Choate) or not significant, like the mention on the US embassy website podcast.--TM 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, just because Other stuff exists does not make this notable.--TM 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, I'm sorry -- I suspected there might be a guideline like Other stuff exists, but I couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing me there.  Still, I think this group should qualify as notable, as it's performed on national television and toured internationally, but I understand that as it stands the article is somewhat lacking. I'll attempt to assemble some more notable sources over the next few days. Rofreg (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Althought it seems like this group has been covered by several national and regional television programs it is hard to find sources not hosted by Yale Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to documented media coverage. Assuming the third-party multimedia references are significant, where they are hosted should not be a disqualifying point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An outcome consistent with Wikipedian policies and guidelines would be "Merge to Yale University". Reasoning: Because this is verifiable from reliable sources, WP:PRESERVE tells us we should retain it.  But because it lacks coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, WP:N tells us it should not have its own article.  Therefore it should be merged, QED. However, strong though that line of reasoning is in terms of policies and guidelines, I feel it should be ignored in this case, it being to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so. Before I begin this next line of argument, I want to mention that it is in flagrant disregard of various arguments to avoid, and my reply is that I'm disregarding the said essay with all due forethought. I feel we should keep this article because (1) Yale University is already more than long enough, (2) this article is well-written from a neutral point of view and I find it encyclopaedic, and (3) a cost/benefit analysis tells me this article is doing no harm and some good, attracting as it does visitors from a scholarly establishment, so I think it beneficial to retain it. So overall, keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this content is verifiable, that the subject fails WP:NOTE, and that it doesn't make much sense to merge this to Yale University for the reasons you've given. But rather than invoking WP:IAR, I think a better course of action would be to create A cappella singing at Yale or something like that, and merge this info there. I haven't looked for sources yet, but I find it hard to imagine that there are not plenty of them available covering the Yale singing group scene, so I strongly suspect that topic is notable. OOTB and the myriad other non-notable groups (both current and defunct) could be mentioned along with the Whiffs and other notable ones, and a discussion of the phenomenon in general could be included. That seems like the best way to handle this content. Yilloslime T C  21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep . A while back, I reviewed an article on another (other articles do, of course, exist) college singing group: this one. Unlike this one, that wasn't an a capella group, but there're similarities. I'm sure that one can be further improved, but was sufficient for me to pass it as a GA, and a passing 'crat I checked with concurred. A quick scan of this article shows much the same factors apply:
 * The group will have independent sources at inter-state or international level covering their appearances, that're sometimes at functions with various dignitaries; naturally there's only so much a source can say in its coverage.
 * Sometimes a neutral tone can be hard to reach because, inevitably, these groups act as a public relations showpiece for a school. However, it is possible.
 * Typically, these established groups will have released multiple albums. They may have competed at international level.
 * The groups may form an integral part of the university's history, or be tied up with its sporting background.
 * For this reason, they should be covered. Where covering them in sufficient detail would overburden the parent (institution) article, a sub-article is appropriate. For younger groups, or those having done less of note (at least as far as sources report), a brief description in the parent article can suffice. From my scan of the article, in this case that doesn't apply and the article should be kept and improved. –Whitehorse1 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Change from "Keep" to "Weak Keep" for now . The existing sources are mainly news media, though identifying what the journalists actually said about the group, or perhaps something like including a small quote from the transcript of news audio segment refs would help. –Whitehorse1 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak Delete. I've wavered here. There are fifteen official Yale a cappella groups, aaand it seems each and every one has an article (inc. the youngest, Shades). Regarding this one, there is coverage. What matters is whether it's substantial (or at least many instances of it), to establish whether the article is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. While sources exist, they must be more than mere mentions. Having searched on Lexis-Nexis as well as Google News I haven't found much: Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island) March 4, 1998 Foodwise: Watch chef make Atomic Grill's Key Lime pie. Byline: Donna Lee mentions they're performing at "the River Room singing classics of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Duke Ellington...". From that we can say...Past performances [i.e. 1998] saw a repertoire of classics such as xyz.." That is a mere mention. There's Rita Braver of CBS News, speaking in 2004 (CBS News Transcripts, "Cue the chorus; a cappella groups are enjoying a new popularity on college campuses"), which states collegiate a cappella has enjoyed a surge in popularity in the last decade, and how this can lead to groups vying for audiences. There are 2 or so news items like that, which generally cover the Rush period where students find out if they'll make it into a group. The presenters might speak to them briefly, asking what group they're from, or naming a few people and reporting what group they joined. There are multiple sources, like those, that certainly go further than mentioning Out of the Blue among a list of groups, or note that they're playing somewhere. But I was unable to find real significant coverage on closer inspection of the sources I could find. –Whitehorse1 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DeleteorMerge I agree that the article is clearly self-promotional. The acap singing culture at Yale College is certainly notable enough to justify an article, but most of the individual groups are not. If this content is to live anywhere on Wikipedia, I would think it should live on a page with all of the groups at Yale like it. Unfortunately for this group, this article does not cite and significant sources except the one mentioned and does demonstrate being notable outside of the greater Yale acap culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.120.138 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails every criteria in WP:MUSIC. If sources can be dug up showing that they meet one the criteria, I'll reconsider. Yilloslime T C  20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd mainly looked at this in terms of WP:ORG, looking at it from the point of view of a 'student org', rather than a 'band'. I'm not saying one approach is more suited than the other. It's just interesting to read how different editors address things! –Whitehorse1 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There aren't really any independent sources to verify information in this article and it is not particularly notable. The article seems mostly self promotional in nature. Rcurtis5 (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

— 130.132.120.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C  15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — SmudgeTheFirst (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C  15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MergeorKeep There are definitely many verifiable sources cited in the article, and a number of the sources seem more than trivial to me. I agree that they have trouble demonstrating significant notability beyond an an cappella sub-culture and their ties to Yale University, but I do not think deletion would be a suitable solution. Many articles related to collegiate a cappella seem to be in similar states of semi-notability (particularly in the case of other Yale a cappella groups, with the major exception being the Whiffenpoofs). To me, the question seems to be whether this group merits their own page, or if they would be more suited for an "a cappella" sub-article of Yale University, along with the other Yale a cappella singing groups. SmudgeTheFirst (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having quickly perused other Yale a cappella groups, I find this to be one of the more encyclopedic, though some of it does come across as self-promotional. I would lean towards Keep if the article could be rewritten and cut down, but again, after perusing the other Yale a cappella articles, I feel there is a bigger concern to be addressed here, as many of the others have been active as articles for far longer than this one, some with much less verifiable/non-trivial content. SmudgeTheFirst (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep: The set of WP:MUSIC criteria by which the group should be judged should be “Others”, since it qualifies under the requirement “For composers and performers outside mass media traditions”. When measuring the group against the five criteria listed under “Other”, however, the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella must be considered.

Collegiate a cappella often samples music in the ‘mass media tradition’, and so most groups would be hard pressed to fulfill the following:
 * (2) Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
 * (3) Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
 * (4) Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.

When discussing ‘notability’, it is helpful to take into consideration how the idea applies in the community under discussion. The largest competition in collegiate a cappella is the ICCA (International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella), and although there are hundreds of a cappella groups, it is groups which appear most often on the ICCA stage that are most recognized. One of the article references is the 2006 Results page of the ICCA website, where the group is listed as placing first in the Northeast Region 2006 ICCA Championship (the group was also awarded for best choreography).

Another measure of notability is the degree to which groups perform with more established artists. Here as well, the group exhibits notability, as evidenced by a reference to opening for the musician Ben Folds earlier this year.

A final measure of notability is the degree to which a group is referred to and consulted as an adequate source of information by reputable third parties. The group under discussion has been interviewed by or performed for WTNH Channel 8, WERS in Boston, CBS News Sunday Morning, and the Jane Pauley Show on NBC. This fact is as reasonably close as a collegiate a cappella group can get to satisfying requirements (1) Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique… and (5) Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

All the links mentioned appear as documented references in the article. Arguing for deletion on the basis that the group fails to meet the requirements under WP:MUSIC is unreasonable, because the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella makes it all but impossible for any group (save The Whiffenpoofs, perhaps) to make the cut. When notability is considered in the context of the collegiate a cappella sub-genre, however, the group under discussion performs adequately. Equartey (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — Equartey (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C  15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yilloslime: Equartey, is the creator of the article, notified on their talkpage of this discussion, by the nominator.Whitehorse1 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whitehorse, s/he's still an spa, and the participants in this discussion and the closing admin may wish to take this fact into account. Yilloslime T C  15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yilloslime, I'm not disagreeing with the technical accuracy of your point, or suggesting the notice wasn't applicable. I'm not suggesting they haven't made few or no other edits outside this topic; although, they are new. We all know what that tag under a post "suggests" about the account. I only wanted to add a clarifying note for anybody who may be reading the discussion, including any closing admin, to make clear that as the article's creator they had, presumably come here in response to their talkpage notice. –Whitehorse1 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with S Marshall about the article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I consider that to be a reason to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (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.