Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House Jacks

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Cbrown1023 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The House Jacks

The House Jacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP votes? Post the references in the articles using the guidelines at WP:CITE. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deke Sharon is widely regarded as the most important and respected arranger in contemporary a capella, and that's just the beginning of his contributions to this musical genre. This clueless attempt to delete him and the Jacks is flat-out vandalism. CASA, Kid Beyond and Wes Carroll are also worthy of inclusion, IMHO, but omitting Deke and the Jacks would make Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary a capella woefully incomplete. Those pages need more info, but should not be deleted. Anyone who can't find hundreds of significant articles about these two subjects has no idea how to use Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.144.8 (talk • contribs). — 67.101.144.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Deke Sharon is to a cappella what Vince McMahon is to wrestling. He didn't necessarily start it, but he brought it up to speed and made it contemporary. The Godfather of a cappella, if you will. Removing any of these subject, frankly, would be a glaring absence in the Wikipedia. As a cappella continues to move mainstream, references and information such as these are increasingly important.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.59.194.230 (talk • contribs). — 24.59.194.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep To a certain community (those people who make and enjoy listening to a cappella music), these people are all giants. Hell, Kid Beyond's on tour with Imogen Heap right now. CASA and the ICCAs, respectively are the most established organization for contemporary a cappella and the most established competition for collegiate a cappella.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.58.233.181 (talk • contribs). — 130.58.233.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The issue is whether they've been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I offer some concrete evidence. The Recorded A Cappella Review Board publishes album reviews independently of all the nominees. RARB has published extensive reviews of two House Jacks albums, three BOCA albums (1,2,3), and two compilation albums published by CASA (1,2). Additionally, due to their prominence, all of the nominees are talked about in reviews of other albums. Here are how many album reviews each nominee is referenced in:
    • CASA 113
    • BOCA 105
    • House Jacks 34
The RARB is not a "non-trivial published work". It's basically the myspace of a college a cappella. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, myspace is the myspace of college a cappella. RARB reviews are written independently by its highly exclusive staff. Groups don't get to contribute to their own reviews, which is apparent in the negative reviews, which you wouldn't find in a PR puppet. A better comparison would be a monthly niche magazine with half a dozen feature-length articles per issue. --Infotrope 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Infotrope 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — Infotrope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The "crap load" of google news articles is just twelve: some of which are satire or blogs and the rest of which are trivial references. Being the openning act to a notable performer is not sufficient for notability even if it warrants you a trivial reference in news coverage of the non-notable performer (e.g. "Bob Dylan performed at X univeristy...the "Non-Notables," a a cappella group at X university opened for him." savidan(talk) (e@) 00:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, I am the same person who posted the above comment which you are replying to) The "satire" piece was a normal non-satire article in what happened to be a satire publication. (It may be a trivial publication, but it was not a satirical article.) And the blog entry you refer to is written by the staff of the Oregonian, a non-trivial newspaper. I feel there is a difference between a one time group X opening in a local venue for a notable band, and being the opening act on every single show of a national tour of a notable group, although I do not know where such a qualitative judgment falls in Wiki notability rules. On Kid's web site, he has a link to a 6 1/2 minute profile of just Kid Beyond on National Public Radio, broadcast on August 21, 2006. Does this count as a non-trivial reference? Even if the other references are trivial, they in combination with something like the NPR broadcast, establish a national tour.70.143.69.177 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are trivial references in non-trivial sources (with the possible exception of the Pasadena Weekly, which is a trivial reference in a trivial source). Not everyone has access to these articles (I do). Could you please quote here what facts you think can be sourced to these articles for establishing notability? savidan(talk) (e@) 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Classic "Human interest" piece. This article does the opposite of claiming that the group is notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't establish their notability with reliable sources, merging is not an adequate solution. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All ICCA is now updated with relevancy (Today Show and New York Times coverage). Deke Sharon... he's the single most notable guy in contemporary a cappella (cf the A-Cappella.com catalog, "In a cappella, there's only one Deke"), so unless this is vandalism by somebody who doesn't like a cappella he's gotta stay. BOCA has been updated to show more notability, i.e., as a compilation series that tracks the evolution of a musical niche, collegiate a cappella. The House Jacks are the first true modern vocal band (cf. history of a cappella at A-Cappella.com. Kid Beyond was the first vocal percussionist with The House Jacks, and as such was the leader in bringing vocal percussion to a cappella. Wes Carroll produced two instructional DVDs that have been the most widely used method for teaching vocal percussionists. As of today, A-Cappella.com has sold cumulatively 2,945 videos and DVDs from Wes Carroll, just one measure of both Wes' notability and the spread of vocal percussion.

Acafella58 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)acafella58 — Acafella58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is a catalog making a commission for selling their CDs, not an independent review. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a sufficient source and not one that makes a claim to notability. A claim to existence is insufficient. The closest it comes to making a claim to notability is: "About twice a year, the group embarks on small, five-day tours, mostly of high schools and colleges." savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just becuase this debate is clogged with puppets is no reason to start over. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Not sure if this 'delete' request is out of ignorance or personal vendetta, but it smacks of some dude's chip on their shoulder. A quick - less than five minute - search of Wikipedia pulled up literally dozens of other far less significant and certainly far less complete or 'notable' citations, related to contemporary a cappella and also not. If Wikipedia is hurting for space or bandwidth then there is A LOT of housekeeping to be done, and of all these challenged entries I doubt any of them would go. Keep them all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.8.100.193 (talk • contribs). — 24.8.100.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The existence of other articles which should be deleted does not justify the existence of other articles which should be deleted. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not attempt to derail this discussion by making comments about the nominator's intentions or by mentioning other articles. The issue at hand is these articles and nothing more.--Htmlism 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see the nominator's Wikipedia user page. This individual fancies him or herself as some sort of zealot crusader against Wikipedia vandalism. This attempt at deletion appears to have been made by someone who is not familiar with the topic but is just looking to put another notch in his or her belt. This nomination does not seem to be a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of a capella. That's relevant. It's not an attempt to derail the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.47.199 (talk • contribs). — 67.101.47.199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep all. Definitely a lot of work to be done, but these can definitely be great articles. tiZom(2¢) 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatley, they can't be great articles. When there are insufficient secondary sources, there is no way these articles will ever become much more than a vanity-laiden fork of the group's personal sites. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No warrants for either of the above two keep vote claims. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RS and WP:NOR. We have reliable secondary sources to establish their notable. The group websites are insufficient. The blurbs on the sites that sell their CDs are insufficient. The coverage in their school newspapers—which doesn't make any claim to their being known outside their campus—is insufficient. The passing mention in news articles when they open for a notable artist is insufficient. I could start a website for my own a capella group or award and make claims. Unless a reliable source backs it up, self-claims to notability are worthless. The sources provided by Acafella are sufficient to prove existence not notability as per WP:MUSIC. What's missing in all of these keep votes is the nexus of notability and verifiability. You can't establish your notability in ways that aren't verifiable and visa-versa. I strongly advise the closing admin to discount these IP votes or votes from very new accounts.savidan(talk) (e@) 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "doesn't make any claim to their being known outside their campus", which I assume refers to the ICCA article; the individual group competing may not be known outside their campus, but the competition itself shows up time after time after time after time in campus newspaper after campus newspaper across the country. (For the record in the 3rd article, the NCCA is what the ICCA was called prior to it becoming international) At what point does the competition itself become notable? I'd hope that if it's showing up in multiple student newspapers nationwide (and if you notice the McGill university link, also Canada), the competition itself becomes notable. How do you show that kind of notability, where no single article can show it notable, but the aggregate of 100 articles from different sources show its notability? 70.143.69.177 10:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we have one person here (savidan) with a compulsive desire to get rid of some valuable information on what 99% of the people posting here see as totally legitimate, noteworthy, and significant. I suggest we close this discussion and remove the proposal for deletion. Rwclark

Is there no provision for a work in progress? Contemporary a cappella is a relatively young field with little coverage, but that doesn't make the material any less interesting or less true. We should take what we have, run with it, and keep improving. --Htmlism 22:07, 18 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_House_Jacks&oldid=1138844153"