Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Birmingham Choir

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 redirect to Birmingham#Culture. After discounting the "keep" opinions that merely invoke age, Google search results or are pure votes, there's rough consensus that reliable sources are insufficient to provide material for a neutral, verifiable article. The policy-based argument for keeping is that there are books about the choir, but the argument that they are all self-published by the choir and therefore not independent has not been refuted. If better sources are found, the article can be restored. Until then, redirecting to where the choir is mentioned is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Sandstein 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City of Birmingham Choir

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization is celebrating its centenary and AfD isn't clean up, but I am unable to find significant, in depth sourcing to meet WP:ORG. GHits are limited to event listings of their performances, and I'm unable to identify a viable merge target. Star Mississippi 20:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could possibly be redirected to somewhere in Birmingham#Culture or a subpage thereof. There's at least one full book length account of two decades of the choir's history prior to WWII. The choir's website lists a few more: [1], although they appear to be published by the choir itself, so that's that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A book about an organisation that has been around 100 years is quite sufficient evidence of notability.Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSOLD is not a good argument, in addition to being subjective (is 100 years really that much? there are some choirs which have existed for over nine centuries)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears sufficiently notable for Wikipedia to cover. They have had several prominent conductors. They regularly give concerts with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra (they are different from the CBSO Chorus). Members representing the choir have performed at Carnegie Hall in New York.[2][3] Verbcatcher (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that notability is not inherited; and that concert programmes or routine announcements are not good sources to write an encyclopedia article; even less so when some of these are merely trivial mentions, like ""Miserere" features Gramophone Award-winning British countertenor Iestyn Davies and Iraqi singer Baidar Al Basri. Participating international choirs are the Chor der Stadtpfarrkirche St. Blasius (Germany), City of Birmingham Choir (UK), Coleraine Grammar School (UK), (...)" (emphasis mine). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, lack of in-depth sources and overall lack of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, but the article sure could do with a large amount of care and attention. De Guerre (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@De Guerre: And on what grounds is it an "obvious keep"? Sources are not good enough; and no other good argument has been presented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Gnews shows a lack of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess no one bothered to check Google Books. There lot's of citations in Google Books. I have added 2. One of them is a book written about them. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Webmaster862: The books about the choir are all self-published by the choir; see my previous comments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2021 (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.