Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baker's Dozen


 * 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 Both. If someone wants to create a redirect to "Baker's dozen", feel free. ---J.S (T/C) 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Baker's Dozen

 * — (View AfD)
 * also nominated: Vocal music at Yale.

College a cappella group which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Claims to notability are having performed in front of various people (which can only be sourced to the group's webiste) and having alumni who went on to join the U.S. Navy or become a Junior Analyst at Merrill Lynch. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I also question the utility of the related article Vocal music at Yale. Wikipedia is not a data mirror for Yale's websites. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added to nom insince no one else has voted. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete student group at a single school. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 60 year history makes it notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of that being a criteria at WP:MUSIC. Certainly not everyone who is 60 years old is notable. There are tons of college clubs that have been around a long time but haven't become notable outside of their college. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Some of the trees in my garden are 70 years old, pretty damn notable trees we grow round these parts. Dei zio  talk 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And do the 70 year old trees in your garden sing and go on tours? I would worry if you answer yes. Edison 05:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If they did they would be notable on account of the reams of direct media coverage the "All Singing, All Dancing Trees of Scotland" phenomenon recieved, not how long they had been around. Dei zio  talk 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Birnam Wood perhaps. Edison 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC however old it is- still not notable. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 04:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC on any of the criteria required and age is not one of them.--Dakota 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above & prior arguments.  SkierRMH, 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Notability. Although the article might not be up to snuff now, we can improve it. After all, isn't the point of Wikipedia to collect information?  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * None of my nomination concerns the article's quality, but rather that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Which criteria do you think it meets exactly? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe a cappella groups are notable. They're just as notable as political organizations. Why don't you nominate the Skull and Bones Society for deletion? It's a college organization. And the page has lots of original research and speculation.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been books, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. written about the Skull and Bones society. Perhaps the same is true for some college a cappella groups&mdash;not the ones I nominated. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are most certainly notable a cappella groups, like The Bobs, Da Vinci's Notebook, and Take 6 to name a few. But just like college political organizations, college music groups rarely make the notability cut. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Ter e nce Ong 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Baker's dozen--Ioannes Pragensis 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not redirect as the two are only tangentially related. dcandeto 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Redirect" recommendation often means there's no merge, so only titles should be considered. If you just look at the titles, The Baker's Dozen is a plausible redirect to Baker's dozen. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Baker's dozen --Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per above. Somitho 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kind of a silly redirect. In this case it would be permissible (GFDL-wise) to delete and redirect since the redirect would be to an article unrelated to the group. Not a very worthwhile redirect though. People don't often use the definite article when talking about bakers' dozens. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Added two references to New York Times and one to Fortune magazine which mention the group. They of course had numerous mentions in Yale papers and alumni mags. Seem more notable than most college a capella groups. Edison 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No way the group qualifies as the primary subject of any of the cited references. We already know they exist. Dei zio  talk 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the group is noted by prominent mention in the New York Times or Fortune in more than a directory listing or a passing reference, that should count some towards notability. "Noted" implies "notability." Edison 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Edison's conditional statement is misleading. The Holland citation explicitly states "mentioned as one of several newer glee clubs at Yale". The Freedman citation doesn't even state whether the article mentioned TBD, saying instead "The Baker's Dozen sang the Louis Jordan song "Ain't nobody here but us chickens" as part of the recruiting of highschool students" (clearly not a quote from the article, given the use of the non-existent compound word "highschool"). The Fisher article is about Keith Ferrazzi (himself a subject of arguable notability), saying only, "Ferrazzi loves singing, so 'I do piano-bar parties, where I have Lionel Richie and the Yale Baker's Dozen come and hang out,' he says." The actual quote doesn't even specifically say that Richie and the Baker's Dozen were there at the same time for a single party, while the citation implies a much stronger connection: "they performed along with Lionel Richie at a piano-bar party". (Such expansive interpretations of cited material are exactly why proper citations and quotes are necessary, to avoid reading too much into trivial items.) These are clearly passing references, not "prominent mention". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, reply to Edison's self-deleted comment}
 * Comment Please remind me which guideline says something has to be the "primary subject" of an article for the article to work toward extablishing notability. Thanks. Edison 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The "press coverage" criteria at WP:BIO states "primary subject". The corresponding criteria at WP:MUSIC states "subject". If you're suggesting either of these can be interpreted as being fulfilled with "(mentioned as one of several newer glee clubs at Yale)" or either of the other references you cited, you're missing the point. As a self-proclaimed BLP patroller you should really know about these guidelines. You're welcome. Dei zio  talk 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect exact of trivial references in non-trivial sources; not a basis for notability. If they're writting an article about college marching bands and mention one person to get a quote from them, that person doesn't get an article. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Group is, in fact, notable. If this is deleted, The Whiffenpoofs needs to be brought up for deletion as well.  dcandeto 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's stopping you from nominating that article. It's an inclusionist fallacy that the existence of other non-notables justifies the existence of more non-notables. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - calls to delete The Whiffenpoofs and Skull and Bones are rather petulant, as they are world-renowned organizations that have been subject to oodles of press, coverage, third-party sources, etc. Yale has 1145436 a cappella groups.  So does Harvard.  A lot of other colleges aren't far behind.  They do NOT need their own articles.--Dmz5 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding the vocal music page, can it be renamed and improved? Like, "music at yale" that could also feature historical info and real sources, as well as lists of present and past organizations?  That seems doable. --Dmz5 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - do not seem notable and are the "references" any more than trivial mentions? They do not seem focused on this group. Moreschi Deletion! 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep They are at least notable for being the subject of a neighborhood attempt to evict them. There are many other hits when I searched for Baker's Dozen on the Yale Daily News, some of which probably contain non-trivial discussion of the subject - even more so for the general subject of vocal music at Yale. schi talk 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yale Daily News articles given prove existence, not notability. Many non-notable school clubs get covered in their school newspapers. If that attempt to evict them got national (or perhaps even state) coverage that'd be a start. If only their college newspaper picked up on it, no dice. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My same comments as above, in the AfD for A cappella groups of UVA, apply here too. Also, this blog reproduces part of (and provides an apparently broken link to) a New Haven Advocate article on the eviction story.  I can pull this article from Lexis (hopefully) later, but the point is that even if college newspapers with editorial oversight are, for some reason unbeknownst to me, not considered reliable sources, then the Advocate coverage should be enough.  Would you say that alumni magazines also aren't considered reliable sources? schi talk  23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into an argument about what is and isn't a valid source for notability, but this does seem like a rather backdoor way to confer notability on the group -Dmz5 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when do blogs make things more reliable? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, when? I know I didn't make that assertion. I said that a blog referenced a relevant article in a newspaper which I was trying to find a copy of. schi talk  08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom. Big  top  21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A college newspaper is an independent sources for determining notability. Edison 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * College newspapers intentionally promote campus activities like the arts. They should be treated skeptically at best for such activities, not assumed to be independent sources. As WP:INDY states, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Groups that have achieved notoriety through outside publications, like Skull and Bones, can lay claim to independent sources. I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article. (That will have to wait for the Final Encyclopedia, perhaps. &#9786;) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another comment about this point, college newspapers (despite Edison's assertions below) do have a vested interest in promoting campus life, and while they are usually not just arms of the administration, they are still far more likely than, say, the New York Times to be full of fluff pieces exhorting students to check out this or that performance. As such, it is proper to scrutinize them in this regard.--Dmz5 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JeffQ - this statement, without any caveats, means that every college organization of every stripe can get an article on wikipedia, from the SUNY-Purchase Lawn Bowling Society to the Dordt College Flea Circus Appreciation Club. While articles in college papers support findings of fact (i.e. "this club exists") they do not confer notability. --Dmz5 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:N (or WP:MUSIC) does it exclude college newspapers from the notability-determining criteria? The idea that we should not consider college newspapers reliable sources seems to defy policy and guidelines. schi talk 08:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a little investigating and it looks like school newspapers were explicitly prohibited from the WP:MUSIC guidelines until very recently when they were changed with the approval of approximately 2 editors on the talk page, and then later rewritten to not mention school newspapers. However, the intent of the policy is clear: the published source is supposed to demonstrate that the groups notability extends beyond their immediate sphere; a write-up in their college paper does not automatically establish such notability. However, facts from a college newspaper article could perhaps establish that some of the other criteria have been met. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, no one is saying they are not reliable sources; the phone book is a reliable source if you wanted to publish someone's address, but it doesn't make that person notable. I know it's not the same thing but you see my point.--Dmz5 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (with a feeling of deja vu) At the colleges I attended, the campus paper had an independent editorial board and was often critical of administration policies, the sports teams, and campus arts groups. Maybe at some college, the President hires reporters and tells them to praise the chorus. I think that is the exception rather than the rule. They had as large a circulation as the town paper, and operated at perhaps a higher journalistic level. It is unreasonable to claim that an article in such a paper does not count as one of the multiple, verifiable, independent sources for notability. Otherwise a Cleveland paper could not be a source for notability in Cleveland. And it is a straweman argument to start talking about the impossibility of having an article for "everything mentioned " in a campus paper, since we are judging by the standard of multiple coverage. The campus paper is an independent source; the chorus newsletter would not be. Edison

15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally see your point, however - I have seen debates (such as the one surrounding Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves) in which the use of a small-town newspaper as a source was criticized for the same reason (i.e. providing trivial coverage of every conceivable organization in the town). This may be splitting hairs, but the Cleveland metro area has a million people; there are about 5,000 undergrads at Yale.  Furthermore, college newspapers indisputably and rightly give coverage to all kinds of trivial things; the Cleveland Plain Dealer generally does not write articles about local knitting societies and community choruses unless they are involved in something that meets a higher standard of notability.  Please do not interpret our responses as being a jab at college newspapers or a claim they are invalid sources or journalistically incompetant, because I don't think that's what anyone is claiming. --Dmz5 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I went to very "good" schools for ugrad and grad school and they both did, in fact, have papers of very low journalistic quality, one of which frequently instates and then removes an editorial policy not to provide critical coverage of performing organizations. So I do not think it is totally off base to question them a little more closely, just as we should question the Small Town Times a little more closely.  This sort of contradicts what I said about jabs at college papers but it's a point that's worth making.-Dmz5 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree that college newspapers, regardless of the quality of journalism or stature of the college, report on a very closed sphere of interest and necessarily give coverage to elements of campus life that would not feature in even a local, let alone a regional or national publication. Reports in college papers and glancing / trivial mentions in mainstream media do not satisfy the spirit or the letter of our notability criteria. Dei zio  talk 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:N and WP:MUSIC indicate that multiple, non-trivial discussions in reliable sources establish notability; editors here contend that multiple, non-trivial discussions in college newspapers do not establish notability. That sounds to me like you don't accept college newspapers as reliable sources, at least for the purpose of establishing notability.  If that's the case, you need to raise it at WP:N or WP:MUSIC, not here.  Also on the topic of splitting hairs, while there are about 5,000 undergrads at Yale, there are 120,000+ living alumni who could be interested in topics covered by the Yale newspaper.  Further, the article in the New Haven Advocate about the attempt at evicting The Baker's Dozen's is not glancing nor trivial - they're the subject of the article. As for the policy's intent concerning a topic's notability extending beyond its "immediate sphere" - again, I question that "immediate sphere" extends to the entire communities of, in this case, Yale, New Haven, and/or a cappella-affiliated/interested people. schi <sup style="color:orange;">talk  18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a sidenote, but as I mentioned above, it seems to me that an article about a real estate conflict the group had might not propel it to notability unless the article is called The Baker's Dozen Eviction Case. Just my opinion. Also, I posted a comment about this discussion on the WP:N talk page, so feel free to continue this there.--Dmz5 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A notable music act will be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (WP:MUSIC) on account of its music, not being evicted, being "new this year" or anything else. I don't accept that being reported in a publication which exists to report the affairs of one university and does not have to compete in the free market can be judged as "reliable" as it pertains to establishing notability. The downpour of cruft such a definition keeps out is frankly huge. I appreciate not everyone shares this view. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT> zio  talk 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete vocal music article as in my opinion it can be the basis for a substantial article, although I agree that it is useless in its present state. I commented on this above but I wanted to !vote here for emphasis.--Dmz5 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, as this debate has not really focussed on Vocal music at Yale at all. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT> zio  talk 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:RS -- Whpq 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dylan 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete individual group articles without evidence of wide notability. I think reworking the "Vocal music at Yale" to include brief descriptions of the various groups might be acceptable. -- Infrogmation 00:03, 24 December 2006 (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.