Deletion of Harvard Opportunes (2nd nomination)

Comment: I disagree; I believe that despite the best attempts, the writers are doubtlessly partial towards their own choral groups, sports teams, and organizations, and I am sure that some of these biases make it past the editorial board.  However, this is beside the point.  None of the ''Crimson'''s articles really speak to any of this article's non-established claims (hence, claims in violation of .  As Pan Dan said just above your comment, we need to source all the claims in this article, at a bare minimum... and I'm still not at all convinced that it covers a notable subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per Hornplease's arguments in the original AfD, showing that the Opportunes meet .  Notability particularly established in http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=100901 this article; also the subject of a few reviewshttp://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=144890http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=234100 (more articles http://www.google.com/search?q=opportunes+site:thecrimson.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N here).  Note that there is nothing in  or  that says "local" (which I would dispute here; geography is obviously trivial, the Harvard alumni community and the collegiate a cappella community are sizable) reliable sources are not suitable for determining notability; nor have I ever seen a Wikipedia guideline/policy that says college papers may not be considered independent in covering college-related topics. (A truly non-independent source would be the group's own newsletter or website.) If the article contains information that is not verified by the sources, that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC||WP:N||WP:MUSIC)