Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natal Philharmonic Orchestra

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep. Courcelles 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natal Philharmonic Orchestra

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

no sources, no indication of notability Dlabtot (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a professional symphony orchestra, the KZNPO must pass our notability criteria, but the article needs a major re-write with proper sources. --Deskford (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional symphony orchestra, the KZNPO must pass our notability criteria - simply untrue. Being 'a professional symphony orchestra' is not part of our criteria. Please base your arguments on the actual notability guideline - WP:MUSIC. Dlabtot (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is wholly inappropriate per Deskford, but yes it needs a good sorting-out. DBaK (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query: it's at the wrong name. Is it bad to move it during a deletion discussion?? DBaK (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave it where it is until the deletion discussion is closed, but then move it to the current name. --Deskford (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible, thanks. DBaK (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. --Klein zach 02:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Coverage in reliable independent sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the notability guideline, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but looking at the sources that allegedly establish the notability of this topic:

1. A speech by a politician presenting the arts and culture budget which makes mention of the orchestra - a trivial mention in a not-independent source which does not address the subject directly in detail. [1]

2. An article about soprano Renee Fleming, which mentions that she will be singing with the orchestra - a non-trivial mention which does not address the subject directly in detail. [2]

3. An article about the opera, Winnie the Opera, which mentions the orchestra only in this sentence: Winnie the Opera mixes classical and African music performed by the KwaZulu-Natal philharmonic orchestra. - a trivial mention which does not address the subject directly in detail. [3]

If someone can make a convincing good-faith argument that these constitute significant coverage directly of the orchestra in detail I would like to hear it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2011 (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.