Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The University of Chicago Band


 * 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. Nomination effectively withdrawn by nominator. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The University of Chicago Band

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

Non-notable student organization with only minor coverage in third-party sources. Excluding Wikipedia and the University of Chicago's website, the only google hits are to other scramble band websites saying that they compete against them, a google books result that mentions a time they played music for an event (that's the extent of the coverage), and a 1.5-page 1921 piece about them in "Jacobs' Band Monthly", a publication for marching band enthusiasts, which doesn't seem to confer notability. All the sources used in the article are either from their website, merely mention them in passing, or talk about the drum that they used to own.&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the Google News hits that go all the way back to 1898? Abductive  (reasoning) 08:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of them seem to be bare mentions, such as "The world s largest drum, be longing to the University of Chicago band, will be seen at the Chicagoland Music Festival tomorrow" or "The University of Chicago band played There'll Be a Hot Time In the Old Town Tonight' and went unrebuked, although. that Is a tabooed melody at the ...". I'll keep sifting through them, though, in case I missed something. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The following was added to the article's talk page by the article's creator and main contributor:&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that this page is up for deletion, so here's my plea. Our band, unlike other bands like Princeton, has managed to stay out of the news spotlight.  We are small and don't do anything stupid to attract the news.  We are also completely student run, adding extra pressure on us to get noticed.  So it would seem that there isn't much about us online, making us appear "less" notable.  However, we (I) am trying to raise funds to purchase articles from the Chicago Tribune from 1896 to 1943 (the years the band was most active).  These articles contain a good portion of the history that has since been lost even to our records.  I have been in contact with publishers asking them if I can site and include their material. If this page must be deleted, I ask for a complete deletion (no merges) as I will no longer edit.  Uofcband (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go to the library, you should be able to view all the Chi Trib articles free. You don't need their permission to cite the articles (but you must not violate their copyright: don't just cut and paste material or post the articles on a website without permission).Edison (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should hope that a 110 year old band, a band that once possessed the world's largest drum, a drum that was contaminated by radioactive leftovers from the world's first self-sustained nuclear reaction, would be as about as notable as a college band could become. If User:Uofcband could find a source that say the band won any awards/competitions, recorded any records or played at any very special events, that would be helpful. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThe independent and reliable source cited above, Jacobs Band Monthly,from June 1921, is a strong show of notability, and says(p 22) "the university band of today is one of the paramount features of college life at the big Maroon institution."  Google News Archive shows many historic news article covered this pioneer college band. They had the largest bass drum,, , . Notability of a band's equipment surely accrues to the band. The band's premiere football appearance was noted by the Chicago Tribune in 1898. There appear to be many articles covering the band hidden behind pay to view policies of newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, so sources exist to improve the article. The notability covers not just the present small band, but the once renowned football band of a Big Ten school, with a notable tradition from 1898 and continuing for four + decades in its initial form, until intercollegiate football was banned at the university. I added a ref with  a detailed history of the band from 1898 to 1917 from the University's magazine. Edison (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Owning a notable drum does not make you notable. Second, source 4's headline ("EXPECT A SHIFF GAME.") and its abstract suggest that the article is about a particular Maroons football game and therefore there is no reason to expect the band that played at that game (or was expected to play at that game, since the game hadn't even happened yet) would garner significant coverage. As I stated above, this seems be the case with all the Google News archive stories, and pointing to a high hit-count is irrelevant; the onus is on those voting keep to show even a handful of those sources are high-quality that discuss the Band itself (not its drum) in detail. (Plus, your search link is misleading, since it will include any news story that includes the phrase "The University of Chicago" and the word band somewhere in the story, which would encompass things like "A group of students at the University of Chicago decided to band together to...". If a source really discussed the University of Chicago Band (which has been its name since its founding) it certainly would include the band's name at least once.) Finally, Source 5 is derived from the University and is therefore not independent and can't provide notability.


 * I accept the notability implied by the 1921 marching band article with hesitation. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I would expect that a special-interest publication would be likely to inflate the importance their topics due to their love of marching bands. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I respectfully disagree about the drum. The drum was part of the band, requiring humans to play it (and I assume one to just roll it). WP:INHERIT is for things like a book being notable because its author is notable and so forth. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see the difference. I've always interpreted it as "things aren't notable because of their relationships to other notable things, unless that relationship itself is particularly notable in and of itself". Also "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable" seems to take suggest that this is a case in which WP:INHERIT applies, too IMO. A product requires a human to create it, too. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People are reading things into the essay WP:INHERIT that are not said explicitly there. It would not imply that owning a sports team confers no notability on the team owner, or that once owning the Hope diamond confers no notability on Evalyn Walsh McLean, whose article says she was famous for owning the diamond and another legendary diamond. Biggest diamond, biggest drum. It conveys some notability. Edison (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. I agree with nom's characterization of WP:INHERIT - and beyond that, when the article's creator says "Our band ... has managed to stay out of the news spotlight. We are small and don't do anything stupid to attract the news" ... um, that's pretty much an assertion of NON-notability.  To address Edison's comments, first off, upon what basis does he claim that Jacobs Band Monthly satisfies WP:RS or that this band is discussed in "significant detail" in it?  Secondly, it's scarcely a stretch that a university band was considered a factor in student life, but that measure of ubiquity is exactly why features common to most schools are not accorded automatic notability passes: how many student union articles pass at AfD?  Finally, WP:V requires not that sources may exist, or that with sufficient digging people hope they turn up: it requires that sources are verified as existing.  I have no problem with the article being userfied pending that, but an article can't survive in mainspace without them.    RGTraynor  09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A monthly publication, with paid subscriptions, and an identified editorial staff about bands and music cannot be deprecated as a source writing about bands because... ready for this? It writes about bands! That is like saying some website or publication which writes about todays popular music is not a reliable source for popular music because it writes about popular music. I cannot understand how a detailed history is not significant coverage. Second WP:INHERIT should not apply to the band and the instruments it owned. Third, notability is not temporary, and any statement by a member of the present pepband that it lacks news coverage does not remove the notability of a Big Ten football school band for 40 years from 1898 to the end of intercollegiate football at Chicago in the late 1930's. Edison (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. A publication is reliable or it isn't. A specialist publication could be construed to be better than a general one to pass judgement. Let's just say they're equal. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that the source was unreliable overall, but because of their nature as a niche interest magazine, they may be inclined to write about non-notable things that their readership may find interesting (e.g., just because Woodworker's Digest writes a piece about a new tool they like, that doesn't make the Woodcarver 2500 notable). Re: the Big Bertha issue, I still believe that this is a classic case of case of WP:INHERIT, and I am interested to hear User:Edison's reasons why he/she believes it is not. And I agree with Edison re: the nottemorary statement. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Some articles about the band in the Chicago Tribune, viewable at a library: 1)"HARPER ASKS A BAND:University Man Is Ready to Blow a Cornet Again. USED TO BE A LEADER. Music Needed to Go with Proposed Military Drill. SENIOR COUNCIL HEARS PLAN Harper Led the Village Band. Must Be Up to Date. Don't Fancy Being Escorts." Dec 2, 1897. p. 5. 580 word  article about the organization of the band, significant coverage. 2)"Expect a stiff game." Nov 22, 1898, page 4. 39 words about the band's first appearance. In prospect or retrospect, it is still includable in an article if marginal for notability. 3)"Ban is on "A Hot Time. Chicago University Band plays catchy air no more." Jun 24, 1899, page 1. Someone ordered  the band to stop playing the aforementioned song, and against playing catchy tunes to support the home team and dirges when the opponent was at bat. Great student indignation on campus. 807 word article about the band, front page of the paper, significant for notability. 4)"HUMBLE CORNELL'S PRIDE:MAROONS DECISIVELY DEFEAT THE TEAM FROM ITHACA," Oct 15, 1899. p.17. marginally significant for notability, useful in article: 67 words about how  "Hot Time" was played by band despite taboo, and Chicago rooting improved, in long story about playing. 5)"Indians refuse to play Chicago," Nov 23, 1899, page4. 47 words in longer story about how the Minnesota and Chicago bands will play, and UC president lifts ban on "Hot Time" for occasion.Marginal for notability, useful in article. 6)"Classic music at football game. University of Chicago band to play the Traumerei today," Nov 3, 1900, page 6. 358 words story about the band changing to only playing classical music, and no catchy tunes or college songs. Clearly significant coverage. Student resentment. 7)"Rooter chorus at the games," Oct 8, 1901; In protest against band's failure to play catchy or college tunes or fight songs, a chorus will supply them. Marginal for notability but useful in an article. In summary, from 1897 through 1901 I found significant coverage in 3 articles in the one paper I have searched. In addition, the article from 1921 in Jacobs' Band Monthly counts. That publication appears to be a reliable source, since it is cited repeatedly in a 2006 book about Sousa published by University of Illinois Press. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BAND criterion 1. Notability even just from 1897 to 1901 is sufficient, since notability is permanent. Edison (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, impressive work! Good job finding those. Okay, nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW. But since you have access to the articles, would you mind adding some new info and citing them so they're listed as references in the article? &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per sourcing found. I'm voting just because I'm not sure they'll let you withdraw with another delete vote present, but there's definitely some good archival research going on. matt91486 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although, reading the above, it appears this one is leaning towards "keep". So, almost certainly never mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the AFD has been withdrawn,but KEEP.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 17 September 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.