Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernacular Music Center


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Vernacular Music Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for 211.181.131.34, rationale (from talk page) is as follows: '' I think it's pretty obvious that the article is promotional though. There are way too many external links within the body of the article. It's a straight up advertisement. It even reads like one. This article only talks about what services VMC offers to different groups of people (students/educators/general public). It says nothing about the history or notable alumni. It doesn't even have any news article references. I know because I looked it up on Google, Google Books, and Google News. Nothing useful (just because there are a lot of links doesn't mean they're useful; you actually have to read the links). Not to mention there's currently only two references, three if you include the one you just added.'' I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 14:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm the nominator. Also, as noted on the talk page, this article was speedily deleted before two years ago for the same reason (promo/advert) that I'm nominating it for deletion now. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, re-review later The only real question is suitable coverage in sources to meet wp:notability  The article has other issues which would call for improvement of the article, not deletion.  The editor is a newbe and probably first understood  wp:notability sourcing requirements when  I notified them 1-2 days ago. So suitable sources have not been looked for, and so their existence is still an open question.  After a few weeks we'll know. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the author. Feedback and assistance are much appreciated. I would seek to conform to Wikipedia practices & expectations in all parameters. Intention is to serve wider intellectual community by engaging in discourse. All critiques noted. Thanks to commenters for opportunity to continue corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchristopherjsmith (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the author. Further editing to bring article within Wikipedia guidelines is ongoing. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchristopherjsmith (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the author. Further editing, specifically to excise inappropriate links from other Wikipedia articles to this one, and to add to this one References and Notes, is ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchristopherjsmith (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I found problems with of five the sources you added. Please see the article's talk page under "Sources" for a longer explanation. In short, they don't validate the facts they're supposed to be serving as a citation for. Also, the reference.com source does not show VMC's notability. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the author. Continue efforts to reach compliance in light of comments above and nomination for deletion. I appreciate the opportunity to do so and the feedback provided by discussants to date Drchristopherjsmith (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued consideration--I can assure anyone questioning that the problems with the article are not intended, and that I do seek to bring the article wholly in compliance with community guidelines. However, I am actually wondering, and would welcome experts' opinions regarding, whether it might not be more appropriate to delete this article, and ask the person at my University responsible for our Wikipedia article to incorporate information on the VMC within that larger Texas Tech University article. Perhaps that would be more appropriate, and closer to Wikipedia intentions and standard practice? I welcome feedback on this. Drchristopherjsmith (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that I'm one of the most involved on this and I'm "on the fence" regarding an answer to your question. I lean towards it remaining as a condensed wikified separate article.  I think that it is very enclyclopedic topic, and in an area where wikipedia needs more coverage.   But I also think that it is borderline on having the type of coverage required to meet the wp:notability criteria which is a main condition for existence as a separate article.    211.181.131.34 has also been involved and nominated it for deletion.    Perhaps others could weigh in.  North8000 (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think incorporating it into the larger Texas Tech article is a fantastic idea. I honestly think information about VMC would be great if merged into the Texas Tech University section. That section talks about many different buildings on campus and VMC could be one them. Also, if merged, VMC could be turned into a redirect instead of being wholly deleted. IMO, there aren't enough 3rd-party sources out there to justify VMC having its own article. As I've already said I've found several sources within the article that don't validate anything. I just noticed today that 90% of the lead is repeated verbatim in the "History, naming and purpose" section. Also, my other concerns from the talk page --> "...the tone in the article reads like a brochure [especially with all the external links in the body], the dictionary source does not make VMC notable, examiner.com is blacklisted, and the article as a whole needs more third-party citations anyway to verify everything." Two of the sources that recently added (converted) are primary sources. They look much better in citation form than as an external link but primary sources don't help when it comes to showing a topic is notable. If you remove those, examiner.com, reference.com, and the other four problematic sources I listed on the talk page, that leaves four acceptable sources. Of the four acceptable ones, two (this one and this one) only tangentially mention VMC. Those sources contain career biographies about Dr. Smith, so they verify that he's the director of VMC but they are not verifying anything about VMC's history or what it has to offer. I don't think there should be an article with only two good sources about the subject of the article (rather than just Dr. Smith). 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Texas Tech talk page is one of the most active editors on that article. At the moment, I am the only one who is in favor of your suggestion, but if merging ends up being the consensus, he/she may be able to help you incorporate a nice four-to-six sentence paragraph about VMC using the four acceptable sources you already have. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sidebar note.  I did some work on the article.    One of the issues was that the material that was in the lead was not in the article; the corollary of that is that none of the rest of the article was summarized in the lead. As starting steps towards fixing that I copied the lead material into the article and then started condensing and reworking the lead. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference note: The link for the article "TTU Vernacular Music Center holds first multi-ensemble outreach meeting article"  By: L.B. Higginbotham posted at examiner.com has been approved  and is awaiting whitelisting. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment / update  I did a lot of work on the problem areas of the article.  It still needs further improvement. I think that it is an enclyclopedic and useful article.  I think it just squeaks by on sourcing for wp:notability.   I'm one of the few/main folks working on the folk and world music articles and one of the folks working in those areas in Wikipedia.  I believe that this article would be a good addition/retention. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article needs a clean up apart from  its massive COI  and promotional  tone. The names of the nn people also need to  be removed, including unfortunately, that  of Dr Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it has more of a "self written" than promotional/COI tone  People inevitably write the same stuff that they communicate to the public which can sound promotional, even if they try to avoid such. I have fixed some of it and can fix some more.   But to become really good, it will need more info from more independent sources.  I think it has enough to squeak by wp:notability, but not enough to write a really good & complete article. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Self-written is WP:COI. From WP:COI "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant ." This "source" which is currently supposed to be validating Dr. Smith being the executive director of VMC is the most irrelevant reference being used. Aside from the fact that this link points to an article written by Dr. Smith about Irish music, it says nothing about Dr. Smith being an executive director. Also from WP:COI "Examples include links that point to commercial sites and to personal websites, and biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article ." In my previous response I already pointed out how the two acceptable biographical sources about Dr. Smith do not help establish VMC's notability (To be fair, Dr. Smith only added one of these sources with this edit; added the other one). For these reasons, added to the ones I've already talked about both here and on the talk page, I don't think this article passes WP:NOTABILITY or even sqeaks by. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: When I posted my July 24 response, there were 12 references. There are now 23 but 11 of them are primary sources. Adding more primary sources does not show notability. From WP:PRIMARY "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them ." I still like Dr. Smith's suggestion about redirecting to the larger Texas Tech article though. From WP:NOTABILITY "...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I gave my thoughts and worked on it some.   And have seen you (211.181....) indicate your thoughts several times.   I'm in a "wait and see" mode on this now.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep — The work that has been done on the article since it was first listed has improved it. However, if the consensus is to delete, then I support merging a concise version with Texas Tech University and redirecting Vernacular Music Center accordingly. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Update I just added some additional references.   My wiki-time for the next couple weeks is limited right now;  so far I just added them as references to material already-in-the article which they support.    When I get more more time I will integrate more material from the sources into the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2013 (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.