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 to delete. W.marsh 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Previously deleted after a PROD nomination, there is no reason given why a bunch of students who perform Gilbert and Sullivan a couple of times per year should be notable, and no reliable sources provided to support notability. The article is completely unverified. As it stands, it would seem as though their only claim to notability is contributing to the cultural standards of Philadelphia in a minor way, which is no way good enough for inclusion in a reputable encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Student and community theatre groups are generally not notable according to WP:MUS and WP:ORG, and this one has no particularly notable aspect. The university or city's article can, of course, mention such theatre groups. -- Ssilvers 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keepor if the consensus is not to keep, Merge to an article on the University. The group has been the primary subject of over 20 articles since 1990 in the campus newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, per [1]. TheDaily Pennsylvanian is a respected, award winning, independent campus newspaper, published since 1885, with an editorial review board and a policy of edittorial review of stories, which are written by identified reporters. As such, it is not excluded as a reliable source. (See ongoing discussion of campus newspapers at WP:RS.) This establishes verification if any of these articles were added to the article, and shows that they are notable at least within their local community, the university, as much as a town arts group would have verification and local attestation of notability with 20 stories in the noncampus town paper or the local TV station. For a campus arts group (there are 45 at Penn, and I certainly do not advocate articles for every one of them) I would like in addition to see 1 or 2 noncampus reliable, independent and verifiable sources showing that they have more than a local notability. the same as if they were off-campus. If they have only local notability, then per WP:LOCAL the key facts in the article could be greatly condensed and included in the University's article. Saying "delete because it's just a bunch of students" completely fails as an argument for deletion, because it's just the "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. Edison 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - deleting articles because they fail WP:V and WP:RS, however, is completely valid. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Contrary to what Sslivers claims, there is absolutely no statement in WP:MUS orWP:ORG that campus groups are inherently non-notable. They must be judged on their own merits the same as an off-campus musical group. Argue on the merits of the case, not by appeals to nonexistant stipulations in guidelines or proposed guidelines. WP:MUS just expresses the views of several editors, and just a guideline. WP:ORG has less authority, and is just a proposal. WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied, in my view, by the 20 articles listed above. To satisfy WP:N, I would like to see sources in addition to the campus paper, as I said. Edison 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - while I would accept the use of the campus newspaper to verify facts, it seems ridiculous to use that campus newspaper to assert notability on an encyclopedic level. However, I would have no objections to a merge to the article on the University. If there is no other coverage the article should either be deleted or merged. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ssilvers. Seems to be a student club that is no different and no more notable than any other student club. As for a college club being written up numerous times in the college newspaper, I hardly find that surprising. One would expect the student paper to write about student events. While it may verify the existence of the club, I hardly think it makes the club notable. Agent 86 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Being surprising isn't a requirement for notability. The guidelines for notability don't exclude college publications. Is our intent here to enforce guidelines or merely opinion about who and what we do and don't consider notable? I am a notability hard-ass, but per guidelines, not per my own opinions. Shaundakulbara 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete generic amateur company. Arts listings and local newspaper reviews are not non-trivial reliable sources (trust me, I've written them, even for my own choir). Interesting repertoire, but in the end I see nothing that distinguishes them from tens of thousands of similar groups and no non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not agree that a lengthy story about a group or a review of a performance is somehow more inherently trivial, unreliable, or dependent because it is in a campus paper than if it were in a comparable small town paper, or if it were on an online site devoted to TV shows, rock music, videogames, porn, or other subjects of articles in Wikipedia. It is very fair to argue that the reliable, verifiable and independent coverage still does not show that their notability rises to the level of encyclopedic importance to meet WP:N, but it is not necessary to go the the extent of casting aspersions on or mischaracterizing the source. We have thousands of articles about rock/pop/rap bands which lack even that, and rely on only online coverage and their own websites, and editors seem comfortable keeping those. I just look for the fair treatment of campus papers as a source, howbeit a local one, and a fair judgnment of the notability of campus or community performing arts groups vis a vis teen bands, videogame "athletes," videogame characters, or other entities more appealing to editors of Wikipedia. Edison 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it is perfectly fair to use high-class, high-circulation campus papers as sources to confirm information. It would even perhaps be fair to use these campus papers as notability-supporters for matters unrelated to the university. What is not acceptable is to use these campus papers as notability-supporters for matters related to the university, for patently obvious reasons. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If Guy "wrote it for my own choir" it was not very independent. There is no evidence that the campus reporters (at least one of whom went on to write for the New York Times) were writing up a choir of which they were a member. I selected articles which did not appear to be reprinted press releases, but independent coverage. A campus paper with an independent editorial board is as about as independent a source for matters on campus as a town newspaper (subject to withdrawal of ad revenue by merchants or to withdrawal of city hall and police dept sources by the Mayor) is for town affairs. I see them exactly as "notability-supporters" for things on a campus, although as I said I like to see non-campus sources to confirm notability as being more than local. Edison 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not doubt that Penn Singers is a good student group and that the campus paper and its reporters are pleased to report on its activities, which are fun for the campus and community to watch. But, as Guy says, there are tens of thousands of student and community theatre groups in the English-speaking world, and, while that is a great thing, they should not each have articles in Wikipedia. However, it would be a great idea to add information about the group to the U. of P. article. Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison. Topic appears to meet the primary notability criterion, which is "subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I have yet to see anything in WP:N or other notability guidelines that says college newspapers are unsuitable for determining notability. This is brought up all the time at the WP:N talk page and I haven't seen a consensus that school newspapers should be discounted for notability; note Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_7#School_newspapers, for example. schi ^talk 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the information in Wikipedia, either as a standalone article or by merging or renaming as an article for campus activities. Even if a single group isn't noteworthy, campus activities collectively are, and this article would make a good start for a collection of information on them. Fg2 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comment. No policy guideline excludes college periodicals such as The Daily Pennsylvanian from establishing notability. Entire articles about various subjects have been based on information from such sources (usually The Harvard Crimson or some such other ivy-league publication, but it is not our role to rate publications within a category). There may be "tens of thousands" of such student groups, just as there have been tens of thousands of ambassadors and generals and battles and movies and so on; this is irrelevant to notability. Shaundakulbara 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability. Fram 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Longstanding and worthy organisation but not a notable one. For comparison the Arbroath Amateur Operatic Society has been performing G&S (as well as other operettas and musicals) since 1903 and it still wouldn't make the cut for the same reasons as the Penn Singers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual for these kinds of student societies, no evidence of notability is provided. Existence is not notability. WMMartin 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Existence is not notability. That's true; being, as the Penn Singers are, the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" is notability. schi ^talk 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.