Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton Operatic Society

:{{la|Southampton Operatic Society}} ([{{fullurl:Southampton Operatic Society|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton Operatic Society}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The article provides no independent assertion of notability Kbthompson (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article about an amateur theatre group does not satisfy WP:MUS and is unsupported by WP:reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability LetsdrinkTea 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick google search for "Southampton Operatic Society" review brings up many reviews of various performances from regional papers in the South of England eg [http://archive.dailyecho.co.uk/2001/6/15/74289.html The Daily Echo], [http://archive.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/2003/1/30/54674.html Hampshire Chronicle] and [http://archive.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/2003/6/25/47599.html The Andover Advertiser] so WP:MUSICBIO #1 is met. It is also covered by the [http://www.thenewforest.co.uk/thedms.asp?dms=13&feature=11&venue=3707055 New Forest District Council] website which provides additional notability by asserting that it is the oldest musical society in the City of Southampton. I42 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

::That's the council's booking website. A clear argument was if a national newspaper covered the society - these are very local reviews of productions. Kbthompson (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

::: It appears to be a "Local Attractions" visitor site; I see no evidence it is a booking site. Either way, it is independent, provides coverage of the Society and makes the assertion that the it is the oldest in the city. There is nothing at WP:MUSICBIO which states that a newspaper must be national (indeed, the footnote says that the definition of published works is deliberately broad). Additionally, there are three Wikipedia articles about performers (Barry Clark (singer), Nyle Wolfe and Rae Baker) which refer to their tenure in the Southampton Operatic Society which may further assert notability under #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

:::: Every large community theatre group has had notable alumni. These three are barely notable IMO, and I doubt that one could really call Wolfe notable. Also, so what if it's the oldest community theatre society in Southampton? Southampton is ranked as the 48th lartest city in England - should we have articles on the oldest community theatre groups in the 47 larger cities? What about those in the US, Australia, France, Italy, Germany, India, China, etc? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

::::: If this was the sole claim of notability it would perhaps not be sufficient. But this misses the point; it is merely supplemental to the already met criterion #1 in WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG. I'd expect something as old as this to have had substantial reliable sources but [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Southampton+Operatic+Society%22 I'm not seeing much], just a small handful of passing mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As the author of the article I have updated the piece in response to satisfying 'notability' and tried to quote the relevant citations. I accept that Southampton Operatic Society does not have 'world wide appeal' but the article was submitted in the spirit of recognising one of the many groups which strive to keep the works of Gilbert & Sullivan alive in this century. I would also like to point out that Southampton is the 16th largest city in England not the 48th - see List of towns and cities in England by population and the third according to density of population- see Southampton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bujurpb (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::References to the society's own website is not an independent assertion of notability. In your 80 years of operation, has no national newspaper noticed you? Look at :WP:ORG for the criteria for inclusion of your organisation on wikipedia. There is no intention to remove the City of Southampton from wikipedia. Kbthompson (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::: Agreed, those references are not suitable - but the ones I cited earlier are. The Southampton comment was, I believe, in response to User:Ssilvers comment of 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC) above. I would agree with you that notability was not met if WP:ORG was the relevant policy but it is not - WP:MUSICBIO is. This is explicit; it states that "a musician or ensemble ... includes a musical theatre group", which this is. If you are basing your opinion on WP:ORG it must be discounted. WP:MUSICBIO states that notability is established if the group has been subject to "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable ... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles". I have provided several newspaper articles which have provided independent review of the group - there is no question this article meets inclusion standards. (Note: I am also independent of the group - I had not heard of them before reviewing this AfD; I don't live in or near Southampton; I am not an opera fan.) I42 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep A borderline case, IMO, and having read it I think we should err on the side of caution before deleting. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.