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 Frederica von Stade#Musical charities. Up to editors whether to merge anything from the history. Sandstein 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People's Choir of Oakland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I am generally the last person to nominate cultural organizations for deletion, as I believe they're important to and significant parts of their communities. However, I cannot find any evidence this meets WP:ORG as the coverage is not there. Creator even indicates it's true that the People's Choir of Oakland has so far been overlooked by traditional newspapers and broadcasters Would not be against a redirect as an ATD, but that seems contentious, so we're here. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no denying that if Wikipedia's general notability guidelines are applied to this article in their full, merciless rigour, it should certainly be deleted. But there are, I think, several grounds for a stay of execution. Firstly, although the People's Choir of Oakland hasn't yet been covered by the mainstream media, it has attracted interest from several classical music websites, and these are, in my experience, at least as reliable secondary sources as books, newspapers, magazines or broadcasters. (I've written more than 100,000 words about classical music for Wikipedia, and in researching my contributions, it has been in what Wikipedia deems to be the most reliable kind of secondary sources that I've found the most numerous and most egregious errors.) Secondly, the People's Choir of Oakland is a charitable organization, and it seems to me that, for that reason alone, a degree of leniency might be appropriate. Thirdly, the Choir is still only in the early stages of its development, and it seems likely that it will attract more media attention when it's properly up and running. All things considered, I think that there's a case for allowing the article to survive for the time being, and for then reassessing it in a year or so. Niggle1892 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niggle1892 I'd actually say that makes the case for a draft article until it's notable. And I have no question about your editing experience and contributions, this is absolutely a good faith creation. A charitable organization is wonderful, but there are hundreds of thousands of them so it's not a factor for notability unless there's coverage to meet the GNG, which I haven't yet found. Maybe some will turn up during the run of this AfD. Star Mississippi 13:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Star Mississippi Thank you for those kind words—they mean a great deal to me. Niggle1892 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the institutions does not meet GNG, we should clearly delete the article. Showing "mercy" for the coverage of inadequately covered topics, just leads to Wikipedia not complying with the guideline it be built on reliable secondary sources, which is bad for the porject over all. Mercy has no part in creating a good encyclopedia, and to attack policies for the lack of it shows an inadequate commitment to having good coverage of topics. Removing an article is not a punishment, it is a determination that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria, so the trhetoric of something being "merciless" really makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from secondary, independent sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Frederica von Stade, the choir's founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. The redirect can be undone once the choir has received significant coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree Cunard and that was the case but it was contended so brought it here for discussion and hopefully consensus. Star Mississippi 13:35, 29 August 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.