Talk:Vernacular Music Center

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Added links from other Wikipedia articles to this article, in order to address the "orphan" status reported in April 2013

Sources

I like the article and the topic. But this article has zero sources (other than a dictionary for the definition of the term "vernacular"). These are needed for both

wp:v and wp:notability. The latter is needed for article survival, and requires (non-self) sources that cover the subject of the article (VMC) I'm not going to AFD this, this is just to advise finding those sources to ensure its survival. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Five of the sources that were added are poor (the following is based upon this revision of the article):

1.This source is supposed to validate this sentence in the article: The Center was founded at Texas Tech in the Fall of 2000 under Executive Director Dr Christopher J Smith.

The source says Since 2001, the Texas Tech University Vernacular Music Center (whose mission statement includes “teaching, research, and advocacy in the world’s vernacular traditions”) has grown a community of collegiate dancers and musicians in the American Southwest... [and] Christopher J. Smith is Associate Professor and Chair of Musicology, and director of the Vernacular Music Center, at Texas Tech University. Although I personally believe Dr. Smith did start VMC the source does not say that he did and it doesn't say VMC was founded in 2000 therefore it needs to be removed or replaced.

2.This source is supposed to validate this sentence in the article: The VMC is widely engaged in sponsoring and partnering with student and community groups.

I could not find anything in the source that supports this. The closest I got was The VMC is kind of an umbrella organization to support a wide range of music and dance. I'm pretty sure sources are supposed to explicitly support a claim. This isn't explicit. This isn't even implied. It needs to be replaced with a better source.

3. This source is supposed to validate this sentence in the article: The VMC welcomes participation by members of the community and general public across a wide range of its ensembles, sponsored groups, and activities, but has also developed and partnered with initiatives specifically designed to facilitate community participation.

This is another case of not being explicit. The source is talking about an Engligh dance ball VMC organized for Texas Tech students. So I guess this source is supposed to be an example of an initiave designed for community participation. Still don't think it's a good source. For one, that's really reaching. What I mean by that is the connection is very vague. If you can't find anything better to support that sentence then it shouldn't be in the article. Second, maybe it's just me but I think of 'general public' and 'community' and as being people from the local area that do not attend Texas Tech. So how can this source support a sentence about community participation when only the students participated in this dance? The word "community" does not even appear in the source so how can this be a good source.

4. This source is supposed to validate this sentence in the article: The VMC offers a range of monthly, weekly, and annual events, almost all open to the general public.

That sentence is not supported by the source. The source is a brief event post about a show VMC put on called "Dancing at the Crossroads". A source that mentions ONE event does not validate a sentence about a range of monthly, weekly, and annual events. Not a good source.

5. This source is supposed to validate this sentence: Dr Christopher J Smith, executive director [of the VMC].

The source does not support this sentence... at all. The source is an essay written by Dr. Smith about Irish music. How does this prove he's the executive director of VMC?

All of theses sources need to be removed and/or replaced. On a side note, is it necessary to use a dictionary as a source (<-- I don't mean this in a sarcastic way)? 211.181.131.34 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have that reversed. The Wikipedia rules place sourcing requirements for the presence of content, not for the presence of a source.North8000 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? I read your response three times and I still don't understand what you just said (typed). Please explain. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it means that you can challenge the presence of the material (for lack of sufficient suitable sourcing) but not the presence of the sourcing. You are doing the reverse. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I get it; however, we're just going to have to respectfully disagree on this one. Of course, I can challenge the sources. If the sources are not validating the statements they're supposed to be supporting then they're not verifying anything and if they're not verifying anything then that means the material lacks a sufficient source. Not challenging it is basically saying it's okay to have sources that don't validate anything or only validate a little. It's not okay.

The sources I identified above are good examples of why this is wrong—especially the fifth one. The fifth source doesn't prove anything. You're saying that I can't challenge the fact that nothing, literally nothing, in the source text says that Dr. Smith is the executive director? Why not? It's not legit. I don't even think it's ethical. You're saying I can't tell him to find a better source (even though the source he currently has is a poor one) because I'm criticizing the source and not the sentence it supports? That sounds so bureaucratic, it doesn't even make sense. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that last sentence sounds a little harsh (sorry) but I don't know a more politically correct way to say 'bureaucratic'. Convoluted sounds worse. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with everything that you just wrote. So I guess that there is confusion. Here is what I meant. If there is a paragraph that contains the statement "John Smith is the president of XYZ" and a source is given at the end of the paragraph, and you have a concern that the source does not support that assertion, your remedy is to challenge (or possibly even remove) the assertion, not remove the source, which may be supporting other different things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation makes more sense but I still disagree. The reason why is because that doesn't work when the source is only supporting one sentence (rather than a paragraph) as is the case with problem sources 2, 3, 4, and 5. Removing the assertion would leave the source hanging in the air without being attached to any content. Specifically with problem source #5, the source itself should be removed because it doesn't validate Dr. Smith being the executive director of VMC, but there is another citation next to it that does. It makes more sense to leave the assertion with the good citation rather than remove the assertion and leave two sources—one bad, one good—with no content attached to them.

Your rationate only works for problem source #1. I'm of the belief that it would be better to put that source behind the sentence it supports (the very first sentence in the article) rather than place it at the end of the ~~lead~~ first paragraph where it's currently sitting. However, I realize this belief is a matter of taste and not necessary what is/is not appropriate. That still doesn't change the fact that sources 2—5 still aren't good, the tone in the article reads like a brochure, 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. As noted below I went to Google web/news/books and couldn't find anything useful. This is why I nominated it for deletion. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something; there is a phone number in the infobox. I don't see how that can be appropriate. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out due to its presence being contested. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional. I just ran across this article. I did some wikification of wording and added a source. I believe that wording shortcomings were/are due to relying too much on VMC as a source rather than the main editor trying to be promotional. I think that it is an encyclopedic topic. It does not have enough suitable sources to confirm wp:notability, but the existence or non-existence of such has yet to be determined. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm nominating this article for deletion. It will take a while to implement since I have to ask a registered user according to the directions. 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. By-the-way, why didn't you link the source webpage? 211.181.131.34 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blocks entry of links to examiner.com. I don't know why, but that particular page looks good. So I showed the link without making it an active link. I have also requested whitelisting that particular link. You might also like to read what I wrote the main editor on their talk page. I also posted a brief note at the roots music project page.

IMHO under the wikipedia system, the issues that you noted would call for modification, not deletion of the article. I'd be happy to work on those. In the end I believe that the one and only question will be the existence of suitable coverage in sources to satisfy wp:notability. I don't know the answer to that question. My suggestion is to give this at least a few weeks to see if sufficient coverage / sources get added. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you can't link to examiner.com is that it's on the spam blacklist, mainly because it's often used for promotion, but also because it isn't considered a reliable source anyway. examiner.com isn't going to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Hut 8.5 15:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be deleted though b/c I'm of the opinion that if suitable coverage can't be found, then there shouldn't be an article. I thought it was normal to think this way on Wikipedia. Doesn't an encyclopedia require good sources? The tone of the article is also a problem. I feel like I'm reading a brochure. Does there really need to be two sections (or a section at all) on faculty and staff? Why does there need to be links to staff member biographies? Wikipedia is not LinkedIn... or Facebook.

I went to Drchristopherjsmith (talk · contribs)'s talk page like you said. This article was deleted before two years ago for the same reason I'm nominating it for deletion now. I'm already not feeling positive about this article but it's even harder for me to patient with Drchristopherjsmith when he's already been told what was wrong with it the first time around. Dr. Smith should already know that he needs sources. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernacular Music Center is now live. Please direct all future comments to that location. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TTU Vernacular Music Center holds first multi-ensemble outreach meeting article By: L.B. Higginbotham

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) 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood. NOW it is approved and (I think) whitelisted. Let's check: [1] North8000 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vernacular Music Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]