Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamber Music Charleston

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 no consensus. Courcelles 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber Music Charleston[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reasoning was (and still is) I can find no reliable sources outside of the local area, so this group fails WP:ORG. Article contains no independent significant coverage in reliable sources (only links to other such organizations, which isn't coverage) and I was not able to find any to establish the notability of this organization. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Page has been improved with references to articles related to Chamber Music Charleston in the Charlotte Observer, Charleston City Paper, wdav.org (classical radio station in Davidson, NC), etc. If this is the correct direction, we can add other references to print and online media in and outside of Charleston, SC. We appreciate any recommendations that can be made to allow this page to remain in Wikipedia. Thank you.Buttercat09 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup: the topic appears to have garnered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but appears to consist currently of mostly lists (with ugly one-cite-per-list-member sourcing) of collaborating organisations, performances, associated orchestras, and titles of "activities". Such material is neither particularly easy to read, nor particularly informative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although mostly local coverage, this non-profit organization does get coverage for its various events. Dream Focus 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization has received verifiable and independent criticism and coverage from both local and respected national media. The organization is active both in Charleston and outside the area and, from links referenced in the article, appears to be a growing and fiscally healthy arts organization at a time when even historically successful organizations within the same area are struggling.Sweetgrass2011 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC) — Sweetgrass2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Coverage is entirely local -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the majority of the coverage this organization has received is from independent local sources, it is undeniable that the cited awards received from recognized organizations in California and Berlin, as well as news articles from Charlotte, NC and Florence, SC fall well beyond the "local" definition. What constitutes "notable" may be debated. Even as a new user to Wikipedia I think there is some confusion between "notable" and "sensational." The past several years have undeniably been enormous struggles for performing arts nonprofits and there has been much more visibility in the press for sensationalistic bankruptcies, labor struggles, and deaths than organizations which have gone about their business with elegance and fiscal responsibility. Does Wikipedia's definition of "notable" wish to highlight primarily the organizations which receive significant coverage via one-time catastrophic events or the more realistic press received for modest and ongoing contributions to our society?Sweetgrass2011 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Now with good inline citations, and demonstrated notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 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.