Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's Blue and White

:{{la|Men's Blue and White}} ([{{fullurl:Men's Blue and White|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's Blue and White}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I originally proposed Speedy under A7 for this but it was refused on the grounds that the group had won competitions (although the article does not say this, the awards were for the arranger of the songs) and on the bases that the are the oldest group in a consortium, however the consortium is made up only of the seven Claremont Colleges, which may make them notable there, but is that enough for an individual entry here?

There are no secondary sources cited, or that I can find, so I feel the group fails all the tests required in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and that the article, although well written and presented should be deleted. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The historical importance alone of the group to the small but highly significant subgenre of collegiate a cappella music warrants the existence of this article. It's clear that much of the information presented requires further verification, but immediate deletion isn't the proper course of action here.--69.178.64.64 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--69.178.64.64 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:(Note: I just moved the above signature from the title to here, probably a typo) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::It is a well written and presented article, there is no doubt at all about that. I don't know much about collegiate a cappella music, and thats a fact (I am a folk, roots and acoustic guy). So it pains me that having spent many, many hours patrolling the backlog of new pages, the majority of which are bland or boring but correctly referenced, that I have nominated an otherwise excellent article for deletion. But perhaps that detachment from the subject means that I am more likely to go by the principles of Wikipedia than be guided by a soft spot for a subject. Wikipedia:Verifiability sets clear guidelines, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" but not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater I attempted to reference this article my self, and I failed and found nothing to verify they were of note or indeed to verify anything in the article other than the subject's existence. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete would be my recommendation for the time being. College a cappella groups are not exactly in short supply, and the only sources provided in this article are the group's own web site and the web site of an a cappella association. I would need to see mainstream media sources about this group to support keeping this article. If the sourcing is improved before the AfD ends, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of mainstream secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 11:05, 15 June 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.