Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Game Orchestra

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. One two three... 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Orchestra

This was PRODed, but I felt it was borderline and deserved discussion. The group does seem to have attracted some interest (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Video+Game+Orchestra%22&cf=all), in particular a full article in the Boston Herald & a blurb in the Boston Globe, as full as full write-ups in several lesser known sources. Some additional coverage can be found in a regular google search: (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Video+Game+Orchestra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Is this enough? I'm not quite sure & so I am sending it here. I'm neutral for now. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep You can't nominate something if you don't believe it should be deleted. Use the talk page if you just want to talk about it. And the news sources you mention existing have convinced me it should be kept. Dream Focus 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well it was already nominated for deletion via

WP:PROD I just "downgraded" it to AfD as it was an unclear case, not an obvious delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Delete There are some reports that it exists, lots of trivial mentions simply stating that they are playing somewhere, which are basically reprints of press releases (not independent). The Boston Globe article is about the only clear demonstration of notability, but to get a full Wikipedia article instead of merely being mentioned in some other more appropriate article briefly you need MULTIPLE, nontrivial, reliable sources demonstrating notability strong enough for an article. This doesn't make it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:ORG. A single article just isn't enough to meat the requirements for significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (as in more than one), and that one article is still from a local media outlet. I imagine they would be fun to listen to, but that just doesn't make this student group notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: For sake of clarity, there isn't only 1 full article about the group, if there was I would have considered it having any chance to be notable. There is one well-known source - the Boston Globe - but also several lesser sources that could be considered reliable which gave full write-ups: Interview by Bostonist, Sampan, a bilingual newspaper, Square Enix, The Tech (MIT paper), The Crimson (Hardvard paper), and a write-up in a Malaysian paper about two group members, but in the context of the groups activity. None of these by themselves adds much, but together I think they come pretty close - which is why I'm on the fence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Harvard Crimson and The Tech (newspaper) are campus newspapers but they appear to be notable and reliable. The Star (Malaysia) is a national newspaper, apparently the largest English language one in Malaysia. Together with the Boston Herald article I can't access, I reckon there's enough multiple, non-trivial coverage from independent, reliable sources. So keep. --Bardin (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bizarre that you should nominate on the same day this article appears in Voice of America. VoA looks like a reliable source to me, sitting on the other side of the pond. I think that the two sources from this Past Month Gnews search (B.Globe & VoA), along with the Malaysian one, create sufficient notability, and the others should allow sufficient expansion of the article. Also interesting is that the VoA article only appears in the Past Month Gnews search and not All Dates. Bigger digger (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read the VoA article, not as brilliant as I've suggested above, but with the others I believe there is sufficient notability. Bigger digger (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, articles in the last month never appear under all dates as far as I've seen. I am definitely leaning keep with this new article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, rushed this !vote a bit. I believe

WP:ORG through a combination of local, regional, national and international coverage. Bigger digger (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep; plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. It's news wherever this group goes. Powers ^T 13:05, 25 May 2009 (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.