Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hereford Cathedral School Chapel 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 Hereford Cathedral School. Relevent material should be merged to Hereford Cathedral School. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford Cathedral School Chapel Choir

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

This school choir lacks sufficient substantive RS coverage. I've no problem with it being merged into its school article, however -- but only to the extent that any material is RS-supported. As of now, it has zero refs. Tagged for notability for well over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Smerge (selectively merge) to Hereford Cathedral School, retaining only information which can be referenced. A rambling and unfocussed article which is also about the orchestra and various instrumental soloists as well as the choir. No refs provided to show it satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements for organizations or for musical groups. Edison (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Smerge - I like 'Smerge'. Nothing notable here. Lets move on. Fmph (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess what it being suggested is actually Smergers ... as in Smerge RS. But as of now, at least, none is RS supported, so it might be easiest to just create any appropriate information in the target, if that is the goal, with appropriate RS support. And perhaps the photo ... which did catch my eye ...--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school as above. The choir is not at all notable and has only existed for five years or so. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A question. All of the text in the article we have !voted on lacks inline citations, which are required with challenged text to save it from deletion, in accordance with our core policies. Are you suggesting that, despite this, the text be merged? I support any RS-supported text being merged; but I'm not sure that non-RS supported text should be re-created in an article, especially when it has been challenged. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said "merge," but what I was actually thinking of was "redirect while making sure that the choir is mentioned - just mentioned - at the main article." As you say, nothing is verified except (presumably) the existence of the choir. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Tx for the explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as appropriate. I think the that can be perfectly well documented , though not perhaps from third party sources; third party sources are not absolutely necessary for routine information about institution, unless there's a reasonable challenge to the accuracy.Let's be honest with ourselves: how much of an encyclopedia would be left if we removed everything without third party sources--especially since, contrary to what Epeefleche claims, they need not be inline unless controversial facts must be specifically sourced. Not everything will make Featured article standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. The article as it stands now has zero text which is supported by refs. The existing text has been challenged. Our policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability tell me that: "any material challenged ... must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2012 (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.