Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Symphony Orchestra

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 delete. Not exactly a resounding consensus here so I'm happy to restore this to someone's userspace if good sources can be found offline. A Train^talk 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

This is a community (non-professional) orchestra based in a northern suburb of Melbourne. While it's been around for nearly 70 years, it does not seem to have any notability beyond the local community. There are a bunch of other community orchestras in Melbourne (e.g. South Melbourne, Essendon, Maroondah, Stonnington) that are similarly not notable for WP purposes and do not have WP articles. For context, Melbourne has two professional symphony orchestras (Melbourne Symphony and Orchestra Victoria) and various other professional classical music ensembles. Boneymau (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BAND. 2 gnews hits says it all. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 70 year history -> there will be offline sources.--do ncr am 02:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please show these offline sources. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

even a search of trove.nla.gov.au which is one of Australia's most indepth search engines for old sources found nothing indepth. there was one 1956 newspaper article with a passing mention. therefore doncram's claim for offline sources is highly questionable. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO Samat lib (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2017 (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.